Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 December 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< December 07	December 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to 2025 Beninese coup attempt. Star Mississippi 03:09, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Tigri

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

Reason: All of the sources in this article are about the recent coup attempt, as is the article itself. Being involved in a coup does not equal notability, per se. And, this seems WP:NOTNEWS to me, as the sources are all news articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersonMan922 (talk • contribs)

Redirect to 2025 Beninese coup attempt as Tigri has no notability beyond this event, and his article is only a stub. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to 2025 Beninese coup attempt. Content should be covered there as he is not notable enough to have his own article. Njathi (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pascal Tigri was the explicit ringleader and self-proclaimed leader of the Military Committee for Refoundation in the 2025 Beninese coup attempt, which qualifies him as the central figure in a notable event under exceptions to WP:BLP1E points 2 and 3. Multiple independent reliable sources provide significant coverage meeting WP:GNG. Ongoing developments, including his alleged escape to Togo and Benin's active extradition demands amid regional tensions (per recent Reuters and BBC reports), counter WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS concerns by indicating potential lasting impact, similar to biographies of other recent African coup leaders.Njathi (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I would wait, let's what will happen to him, if he got captured by government forces, I would also say merge. User:MarketFruit (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until sources publish more about him. It's been one day since the coup attempt, and he's still on the run.

Redirect to 2025 Beninese coup attempt as above. Giant Snowman 21:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2025 Beninese coup attempt per Nice4What. The reasons they stated are compelling enough for me to support the redirect option. We can also wait for a while, until we see how actually notable he will became. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, with a (current, soft) preference to Redirect to 2025 Beninese coup attempt. As above, it is a bit WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALLy to have an article up when the subject's only clear claim to notability is a failed coup. MrSeabody (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - See reason above Trey Wainman (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: did he have pre-coup notability? Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being involved in a coup does not equal notability, but leading an attempted coup does! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. Sanad The Libyan (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait This is a rather recent story. I noticed the BBC published something regarding him and the coup attempt two days ago. I don't think this should be voted on until more news comes out. Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, the most obvious issue is that it will likely fail WP:LASTING, which would support redirecting what little is contained here to the 2025 Beninese coup attempt page. Lf8u2 (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am updating my previous position of wait to keep after reading WP:BLP1E which seems to be the most relevant guidelines. While points 1 and 2 are probably true, Pascal Tigri played a significant role in a significant event. HappiestSisyphus (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It may have been unsuccessful, but Tigri led a failed coup attempt against a democratically elected government. Fortunately, it failed, but no serious, reputable Africa analyst would argue that he isn't notable in Beninese politics and recent history at this point. Scanlan (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be a plain misreading of NOTNEWS. BLP1E would seem to fit better here, but even that is a stretch. Corundum Conundrum (CC) 11:12, 13 December 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. Star Mississippi 03:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Choegowi

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT/WP:NEVENT.4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep- though currently lacks sources, a check into the JP and Korean Wiki shows it being more fleshed out, albeit interestingly still lacking in sources. If this is unacceptable due to sourcing issues , which I suspect may have more offline native language sources, an ATD would be a redirect to List of professional Go tournaments#South Korea #defunct tournaments where its mentioned.Lorraine Crane (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On what policy are you basing a keep? You've just pointed out lack of sources issues which fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NSPORT and WPNEVENT and WP:ORG. We don't just keep based on guesswork. We actually need evidence of coverage.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This booklet contains some coverage of the tournament when taken as a whole, especially on page 102. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to List of professional Go tournaments#South Korea #defunct tournaments. I am not seeing many sources with SIGCOV. Even if the booklet that Kelob2678 cited does have SIGCOV, -- I can't assess a Korean language source -- one source doesn't make the article notable. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:47, 8 December 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. ✗plicit 23:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Litvinism

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

Does this phenomenon exist? Yes. Is it worth describing on Wikipedia? Probably yes. Does this article do it properly? No. What we’re dealing with here is not an encyclopedic article but a long, chaotic, poorly thought-out, and badly written essay that mixes facts, half-truths, and myths. The article is a product of the sudden wave of panic that swept through Lithuania in 2023 regarding the supposedly reviving “Litvinism” among Belarusians, especially the émigré opposition. That panic has since faded; the whole thing was most likely a provocation by Belarusian and/or Russian intelligence services. Today nobody even remembers it anymore, and Litvinism has once again returned to the margins.

In my view, this article is precisely a fruit of that panic. It reads like a collection of the greatest fears, resentments, and frustrations of a Lithuanian patriot. I suggest applying WP:TNT and starting from scratch. I tried to fix it by removing the most absurd parts (for example, a photo taken at an angle in which Saint Sophia Cathedral in Polotsk isn’t even visible, used as “proof” of deliberate “de-Lithuanization” of the city; quotes taken from obscure websites; and so on), but there is simply too much of it.

Above all, the article is incomprehensible: it cannot clearly explain the phenomenon it describes or even clarify the basic terminology (we get lost in who is a Litvin, Letuvis, Litwin, Litwin [in Polish], etc.). It is also not based on serious academic sources: 90% of the references lead to niche websites or popular-science periodicals. There is really nothing to salvage here. Marcelus (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Belarus, and Lithuania. Marcelus (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very informed in the topic, I started a stub article on it in 2021 because I found Litvinism an interesting phenomenon. As far as I know, Pofka is the author of most of the article. What I know is that I am opposed to turning this into a redlink. If Pofka's edits are found to be problematic, I suggest instead restoring the article to this version [1], before Pofka made any edit. Apart of the sources on that version not being of the highest quality, there is no WP:POV, WP:SYNTH or other major issues.

By the way, I believe the OP's first comment could attempt to be more persuasive and policy-based. I am not disputing their claims, but issues are named while few examples are actually given. For someone unfamiliar with the subject (since AfDs are open to everyone, not only topic area regulars), the explanation on the first paragraph is particularily obscure, are there sources for this 2023 "panic"?. A link to this thread in the talk page [2] that apparently preceded this AfD was not even provided. I think I will not be making any further comments here. Regards, Super Ψ Dro 23:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus Of course turning into it into a redlink is a extreme measure. WP:TNT can also mean turning it back to the version you pointed out and starting from there. Marcelus (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DINC. This page should be improved instead of deleting it. In addition, the problem of Litvinism has been going on for the last 30 years and has certainly not faded. I had problems with such individuals in my real life, but I have decided to avoid editing this page in order not to waste my time. – sbaio 06:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep, even though right now it's very biased and violates NPOV policy. It frames a legitimate historic perspective (that Belarus shares the heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) as a "hostile pseudoscientific theory" or a "Russian psy-op." But that can be fixed. Preferences (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. The topic has been covered by Lithuanians[3][4], Belarusians[5][6][7], and Russians[8]. The article certainly suffers from WP:NPOV issues, but they are absolutely surmountable. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of Litvinism is WP:NOTABLE (e.g. perform Google search "litvinism" or its Lithuanian language form "litvinizmas") as it was already often written in WP:RS about Litvinism and this form of pseudoscientific Belarusian nationalism received criticism not only by Lithuanian historians, politicians but also by Belarusians themselves like Vincuk Viačorka and Sergei Shupa. The article is full of precisely cited online sources (especially its version before mass non-consensual content deletion) which describe Litvinism and its manifestations by Belarusian individuals who do not follow the mainstream scientific approach about the history of Lithuania. Moreover, almost every reference is to an online source, therefore they are easily WP:VERIFABLE for anyone who have doubts if the written text in the article is precisely based on the initial source. -- Pofka 19:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if the article is poorly written I don't think it should be deleted. Why delete the page when you can edit it? Here is a scholarly paper titled Twelve Myths of Litvinism to add to the mix: [[9]] Medieval history powers a crisis of identity in Lithuania and Belarus [[10]]Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others already stated, just because you dislike the way an article is written does not mean it should be deleted.-+JMJ+ (talk)
Keep. I'm not sure if there's some issue with POV-pushing on the page, but it should be kept. Recent political issues with Belarusians in Lithuania should not influence Wikipedia's content. _⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 22:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biggie Switzerland

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Searches turned up the companies own page and WP:ORGTRIV sources. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 22:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 22:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Less than a dozen hits on Swissdox limited to WP:ORGTRIV, no WP:SIGCOV. Also, weirdly enough, was created with a perfectly de-wiki layout, down to the infobox template, before being translated, but no such article exists over there. YuniToumei (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and fails WP:NCorp Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not have enough reliable sources.Darkm777 (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISIRTA episodes and songs

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

Hardcore WP:INDISCRIMINATE with no sources, seems a fanmade repository Shredlordsupreme (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about the same show and suffer the exact same issues:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Radio, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or weak redirect all to I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again. That article reads like serious fancruft itself though. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is better suited to a fandom site. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Wikipedia is not a fan site. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per others. Red Shell Momentum 03:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a trivial episodes song list, which Wikipedia isn’t for per WP:NOTDIR. ~2025-40198-86 (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep all because it’s real. Ilovesomegeography (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC) sock of Imbackjjj Emk9 (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack White (footballer, born 1912)

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

Fails WP:BIO1E and WP:SPORTSBASIC. Footballer who played in only one game.4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 9 December 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 Monaco at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Rowing. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Devissi

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

Cited only to databases with no prose text. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC/WP:SPORTSCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monaco at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Rowing as an appropriate AtD for participants at an Olympic games. --Enos733 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monaco at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Rowing – Per above. Svartner (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monaco at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Rowing, where his name was mentioned. Monaco is a small country almost without reliable media. There might be offline sources in French but I'm voting redirect for now. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:50, 9 December 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 Sheraton Hotels and Resorts. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheraton Lagos Hotel

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

Don't see evidence it meets WP:GNG or WP:COMMERCIAL. Maybe redirect to Sheraton Hotels and Resorts? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Nigeria. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps redirect to Sheraton Hotels and Resorts? I think there's actually a bunch in the Category page for Sheraton Hotels that could be considered for deletion/redirect. Katiedevi (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would make sense. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sheraton Hotels and Resorts 🄻 🄰 13:48, 13 December 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) BenTanXiaoMing (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wee

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

Does not meet notability guidelines as per WP:PROF BenTanXiaoMing (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BenTanXiaoMing (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has a few honours, appointments and accolades, such as the 2008 President's Medal of the Singapore Institute of Physics, being president of the Singapore National Academy of Science, and vice-president of the National University of Singapore. I don't know enough about Singaporean academia to pronounce on these with confidence, but the presidency and the medal would seem to point in the direction of criteria 2 and 6 of WP:NPROF. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Fernandez

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

Fails GNG. Not finding any SIGCOV for this low-level NAIA college basketball player. His "pro" teams don't even have Wikipedia articles. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Michigan. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does not look promising. Created by an SPA. Geschichte (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the most notable Anthony Fernandez and when you tack on basketball I get even less hits--and not enough to bolster the page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Perfect example of an article that deserves WP:TNT. Svartner (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tsing Yi Island#Geography. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kam Chuk Kok

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

Unsourced since 2005. Fails WP:GNG. I could only find passing mentions of the cape in sources. 4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY, based on the sources added by Eastmain. Bearian (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tsing Yi Island#Geography as an WP:ATD. While I appreciate that there is improved sourcing (the last link doesn't work for me), they still only consist of passing mentions, not enough for WP:NATFEAT

[11] is a helpful map Katzrockso (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The new references are not significant coverage and merely verify that Kam Chuk Kok exists. There isn't really anything of note to merge; the area is a Shell oil depot and that isn't an encyclopedic detail. There isn't any other human activity, fauna, flora, or geographical details to add either. Yue ✉ 00:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Katzrockso. Notability so far has shown to be marginal per WP:NATFEAT and it can be better covered on the Tsing Yi Island page. SportingFlyer T·C 16:25, 12 December 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 Chris Olley. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve project

AfDs for this article:

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

The Twelve project not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music. The article was marked as "may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music." in June 2016, the article has not improved since then, in searching for sources covering the topic, little to none came up. LillaRis87 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. LillaRis87 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The act also has three album articles that should probably be removed if the act is found non-notable. The albums and this group-level article could be redirected to Chris Olley though his article is very low on sources itself. Also, the name of the act is simply "Twelve" and having "project" in the article title is both nonsensical and against WP rules. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found the entire web of articles connecting to Chris Olley a complete mess, nothing is clear. I tried for multiple hours on separate days to clear it all up and find sources and reliable mentions of the various topics in the articles, but to no avail. LillaRis87 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chris Olley, and do the same for the Twelve albums Be Careful What You Don't Wish For, Houston We Have No Problem, Houston We Have No Problem II – Raumschiff Schlaf Symphonie. Based on comments above, Olley's article can possibly be improved a bit with some more sources about his overall career such as [12], but all these articles about Twelve cannot stand on their own because it was a barely-noticed side project. Olley's article might be a candidate for redirecting in its own right (to Six by Seven) but that is a different discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chris Olley – As pertinent WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 20:21, 15 December 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) 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gilbertson (climber)

AfDs for this article:

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

This is the third nomination for deletion in a little over a year with successful deletions on October 19, 2024 and January 4, 2025. As noted in those discussions, the subject is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. The article relies on several primary sources plus some media sources. The media appears to be reliable at a glance but the vast majority of these are not independent of the subject (WP:GNG) and are instead involving interviews with Gilbertson himself or directly quoting his blog/social media profiles.

Examples of especially problematic sources carrying significant weight on the article are self-entered data on websites, this and this which largely contain direct quotes from Gilbertson's blog or Instagram, and this and this which largely regurgitate Gilbertson's findings that he (et al) had published in one of two academic papers. Most of the rest are interviews done with Gilbertson, which are also not independent of the subject.

Many of the sources on the article could be useful if sufficient independent coverage can be found but a web searches do not seem to offer any sources that don't stem from specialist interviews, the blog, social media, or the short bio on the Seattle University website. Gilbertson could indeed become notable at some point in the future, but for now this is not the case.

Finally, the article includes a lot of trivia to WP:FLUFF it up, such as that Gilbertson has climbed 144 of 196 country high points (according to Gilbertson), that he holds the fastest known climb for the tallest 100 mountains in various U.S. states (again self reported). DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 17:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Kentucky, and Washington. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 17:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, and Geography. Graywalls (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As you can see from the sources cited in the article, there is a mountain of independent coverage. I'd agree if you were just referring to churnalism, but plenty of the sources are clearly not that. the interpretation that sources should be excluded from GNG if they are "specialist" or quote the subject in the article is not supported by policy or practice. Many of the sources additionally quote other people, showing that they cannot not just be repeating what gilbertson tells them. The most thorough sources imo are [13][14][15] and I would keep the article even if there was no other coverage.

Some of the claims in the nomination also show a lack of understanding of the topic—for example, FKTs are independently verified. (t · c) buIdhe 18:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The FKT "verification" process is to simply a review of self reported data as described on their website. Their disclaimer reads "We are unable to definitively verify the accuracy of every FKT submitted." DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 18:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the FKT website supports notability given that it's a database entry, but their verification process is rigorous and FKTs often generate media coverage and sponsorships. It's not accurate to describe it as a self report as you claimed. (t · c) buIdhe 18:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply responding to your claim that I have a lack of understanding of the source material. If you have another resource that shows more rigorous verification of FKT claims then sure, but based on what's described on the linked website I am not convinced this is beyond self-reporting. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 18:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt this promotional BLP that does not pass GNG to avoid wasting any more of editors' time. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: it's unusual to see a GA here, though GA status is not itself a bar to deletion (we have deleted Featured Articles in the past). Both the nominator and reviewer are experienced editors: pinging It is a wonderful world and ~~buidhe~~ (I had misread the signature on the comments above!). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @UndercoverClassicist: I'm surprised at how quickly this went GA. It was created November 23. It was GA listed November 25. Two days. I've never seen it happen so fast in my entire time on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh; I don't see anything odd there. I'll usually nominate an article for GA when I feel it's "finished", and for a short article like this one I can completely imagine "finishing" it (at least to GA standard) in a day or two. I certainly can't see that the GA nom was anything other than thorough: it seems well within the standards usually set at GAN. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The quick rise from draft to article to speedy deletion candidate to GA does raise eyebrows. There was a brief discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 36#Need AfC review before GAN can be started where it becomes apparent that, even before the article creator promoted their own draft to article-space, they were planning to immediately nominate it for GA. I have occasionally seen immediate reviews of new GA nominations but it's rare; more often they languish for months. The biggest thing I'm surprised to see unadressed in the GA review is why the two very recent AfD delete outcomes don't immediately disqualify it as GA under the stability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to the complexity, when challenged about a source (ExplorersWeb) listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing/Article recommendations, the primary author of the article responded by removing that wording from the page without opening a discussion with that group. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 20:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This question is unrelated to the deletion discussion. I do not think that the source should be listed as unreliable unless there is actual evidence and a real discussion about it. (t · c) buIdhe 20:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is unrelated as it was challenged in this AfD and removed as a result. Thank you for opening the discussion at WP:RSN. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 20:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a discussion about whether or not ExplorersWeb is reliable before it is removed. It is run by All Gear Digital as of 2024, unsure when/why it was added to the non-reliable category. [16] Revolving Doormat (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have removed that source from the article and re-sourced the material elsewhere. Revolving Doormat (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because I disagree that most the sources can be discounted due to them being regurgitations of his blog or academic research. Firstly, academic research being reported on by media contributes to its notability – it means there is secondary interest in his work. Secondly, the sources containing direct quotes from Gilbertson's blog or Instagram contain large amounts of factual reporting on his work, which makes up more of the content in these articles than quotes from his social media. I would not be opposed to removing the fact about the 144 of 196 country high points, though it could stay as it is attributed to Gilbertson already and covered in an independent source. Some other things I think are misleading about this nomination are:

As noted in those discussions, the subject is not notable enough for a stand-alone article" – The article has been entirely rewritten and a bunch of independent sources published after those discussions took place have been added

The FKT profile does not carry "significant weight on the article". It is used as a primary source in addition to the secondary source directly before it, which also verifies all the information in the sentence

The Times article is never mentioned, even though it seems like the strongest source in the article (though note I am unable to access it to verify that it has no issues).

The record for the 100 mountains has an independent source which directly supports the claim. This means it is notable and is not WP:FLUFF. IAWW (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's old news that was available during the first two rounds of AfDs. @Rsjaffe and Star Mississippi:, are you guys able to review old deleted versions? I would like to know if citations now are substantially different since then and became available that would make him notable now but not then. Graywalls (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can check that for yourself just by checking the publication dates on the currently cited sources. (t · c) buIdhe 19:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the references in the last deleted version of this page title:

"North America". web.mit.edu. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
"Billigreisen und geschmierte Polizisten – die Abenteuer der Kletter-Zwillinge". Tages-Anzeiger (in German). 2022-10-25. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
"Country Highpoints. Bracia jako pierwsi chcą zdobyć najwyższe szczyty górskie w 196 krajach | National Geographic". www.national-geographic.pl (in Polish). Retrieved 2024-11-26.
Southern, Keiran (2022-11-02). "Twin peaks: brothers Matthew and Eric Gilbertson rewrite mountain record books". www.thetimes.com. Retrieved 2024-11-26.
"Eric Gilbertson, PhD". Seattle University. Retrieved 2025-01-02.
Milne, Keeley (2023-08-09). "Oregon's Jason Hardrath obliterates Rocky Mountain Grand Slam FKT". Canadian Running Magazine. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
"Beta and Brews: Winter FA of Hard Mox with Eric Gilbertson". The Mountaineers. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
"Zwillinge wollen höchste Punkte in allen Ländern der Welt erreichen". Süddeutsche.de (in German). 2022-11-09. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
Ghosh, Souparno. "Alumni have summitted the highest points of every North American country". The Tech. Retrieved 2024-11-26.
"Billigreisen und geschmierte Polizisten – die Abenteuer der Kletter-Zwillinge". Tages-Anzeiger (in German). 2022-10-25. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
"Wolt-bud besteg verdens farligste bjerg og var tæt på katastrofe: Pludseligt regnede det med tunge sten og iltflasker | fyens.dk". fyens.dk (in Danish). 2022-10-22. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
"The Line: Global Ambition — American Alpine Club". American Alpine Club. 2024-08-21. Retrieved 2024-09-10.
"فرواع..أعلى قمة سعودية". arriyadiyah.com (in Arabic). Retrieved 2024-09-11.
"A Tale of Two Peaks - Destination KSA". 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2024-11-26.
"Newsday - Twin peaks: Brothers' mission to climb every national highpoint - BBC Sounds". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2024-11-26.
"Mount Rainier is shrinking and now has a new summit". The Seattle Times. 2024-10-06. Retrieved 2024-11-30.
"Rainier Is Shorter Than We All Thought". Seattle Met. Retrieved 2024-09-11.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls I don't have the on wiki bandwidth to assess the sources right now, but I've undeleted the history for you and any other interested editors to review and assess. cc @Rsjaffe Star Mississippi 19:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls, I ran out of bandwith to dig into this one when I was going through the Science AfD list, but my main question on this one too is if anything had changed since those AfDs in terms of the subject's notability. Did you notice anything that stands out? It really does look like a salt and delete case on its face like @Xxanthippe mentioned since this AfD would need to overcome previous consensus to delete. I'm not going to formally !vote since I didn't do a deep dive, but it's kind of looking like this is a standard WP:NPROF case that doesn't meet academic notability, and coverage in local papers in such a role doesn't indicate such a depth of notability either. I could change my mind, but that's at least my initial read before I ran out of time. KoA (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (disclosure of COI with article subject). The article in its current state is bloated with unencyclopedic information plus unreliable sources like ExplorersWeb. However, in my opinion Gilbertson satisfies GNG, primarily due to his surveying work and not the country highpoints project. His surveys being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals boosts his credibility and notability as an academic. Of course, the article needs a lot of work and doesn't even have an infobox. Not sure how it was nominated for GA status so quickly. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editors should note that KnowledgeIsPower9281 was the article creator of the first two iterations of this article that were deleted, but has not been involved in the current article. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 16:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're COI, I think it's inappropriate to say keep and batting for your buddy. That's massively COI and biased. Graywalls (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KIP disclosed the COI and hasn't edited this article. Your comment here feels inappropriate. I looked at his previously COI disclosure and it said that he met with him on Zoom a few times to discuss mountaineering. I think you are creating a mountain of a molehill, so to speak. Revolving Doormat (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Revolving Doormat:, I believe you're unaware of their highly contentious advocacy edits, including not so distant past of repeatedly creating the Gilbertson article. For context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_497#h-Use_of_Eric_Gilbertson_Peer-Reviewed_Survey_Journal_Articles_As_Sources_For_Rele-20251119214500 So, I believe continuing to root for his buddy would cross into advocacy editing. Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if instead of using combative language without any context, you pointed out in the most neutral, non-hostile manner, that KIP disclosed that he was editing on behalf of Gilbertson, thus his vote here is effectively a vote from Gilbertson. Thanks for linking to it. Revolving Doormat (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The previous 2 AfD were based on a reactionary opposition to the fact that the previous versions of the article were written by a COI editor who engaged in significant promotional editing and should not be read as establishing that the subject is not notable. The sources (especially The Times article [source #1] and The Aspen Times article [source #7]) are sufficient to establish notability under WP:BASIC.

The Aspen Times source was published after the last AfD. There is also this interview source [17] that provides a some independent significant coverage at the beginning of the piece (e.g. On October 5, Gilbertson and two colleagues, Elijah Gendron and Peter Klein, climbed the 14,299-foot Crestone Peak in the dark, arriving at the saddle between the summits of Crestone and an almost-as-tall bump called East Crestone at dawn. What the three-man crew wanted to know was which one of the points was taller. After using sophisticated equipment mounted on both rocky peaks simultaneously, Gilbertson demonstrated with a 99% confidence probability that East Crestone was actually 3.6 inches taller than Crestone. This means that he discovered a new 14er in the Sangre de Cristo Mountain Range.) that also contributes to notability. Katzrockso (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The subject unquestionably passes WP:GNG for more than one event for at least the past 5 years:

KUOW [18] (2025)
The Conversation [19] (2025)
Outside Magazine [20] (2025)
Seattle Met [21] (2025)
Explorer's Web [22] (2023)
The Times [23] (2022)
Outside Magazine [24] (2022)
The Seattle Times [25] (2021)

Honestly surprised to see this in AfD. Revolving Doormat (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein Care to explain your massive rollback of my improvements to the article during an AfD discussion? Revolving Doormat (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse slip. Sorry. I didn't even notice I had done it, so thanks for the alert, but some more WP:AGF would have been nice. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my tone read otherwise, I assumed you had a good reason. Accidents happen. Revolving Doormat (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gilbertson is a notable mountaineer due to his well documented accomplishments such as climbing the world's second highest mountain, K2, without supplemental oxygen as part of a successful effort to climb seven extremely challenging mountains in Central Asia. His research on the changes in elevation on Mount Rainier and other Washington peaks due to snow cap melting has recently been covered by ABC News and SFGate and Outside magazine and Utah State University and Explorersweb and National Parks Traveler, all in the past two months. In February, 2025 the most definitive source for American mountaineering, the American Alpine Club, covered his research and his climbing. They described him as "an exacting, rigorous person who prizes accuracy above all in his life’s work" and called him and his brother "respected alpinists in their own right, with several technical first ascents". He is only the third American to receive the prestigious Snow Leopard award for climbing all five 7000 plus meter mountains in the former Soviet Union. This is only the briefest summary of his extensive mountaineering and mountain research accomplishments. I understand that previous versions of this article have had problems with COI editing. The solution to any problems with the current version of this Good article is ordinary editing to remove the problems. Certainly not salting. There is no doubt in my mind that Gilbertson is a notable mountaineer and that it would be a grievous error to remove this biography from the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gauthier Biomedical

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A Google failed to yield sufficient coverage to ring the WP:N bell. Page is a stub with only one affiliated source. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Medicine. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be little more than an advertisement. Athel cb (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article creator has not edited in almost 14 years. However, in 2011 they left a note on their talk page indicating a desire for the page to be deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside from various we-voice listings of the firm, there is a "Twin Cities Business" page indicating that they received a 2012 Family Business Award, and providing some data about the firm at that time. However neither the award or that coverage seem sufficient for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 13:32, 15 December 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 17:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson, Kansas

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

I proposed this article for deletion because it seems to be a GNIS permastub about a fourth-class post office misclassified as a former village. However, an anonymous user deprodded and redirected it to List of ghost towns in Kansas#Smith County. I requested deletion not because it is a content-free gazetteer entry, but because it is not (and never was) a populated place at all; if left as a redirect to that page it will continue to mislead readers by implying it was. Passenger pigeon (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas. Passenger pigeon (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This source doesn't mention the settlement named Anderson, but mentions the post office. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete This has been deleted from GNIS, and the source does not appear to have been a topo so no telling. Anyway, 4th class post offices are not notable that that's all we have evidence for. Mangoe (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 16:02, 10 December 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beya Alcaraz

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

Alcaraz was appointed and resigned in about a week. Although there has been a flurry of attention in the local media, she doesn't pass either WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BLP1E. I have added a short section to the article on Daniel Lurie that should be adequate coverage Lexiconaut (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Lexiconaut (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 05:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SUSTAINED probably applies here, subject's notability seems to be mostly in the context of her being elected, and given she only sat for one week this doesn't substantiate sustained notability for a biography. Athanelar (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too early to make a call on WP:SUSTAINED as she only resigned last week. Plus she meets criteria for WP:POLITICIAN so that policy becomes superfluous. ~2025-34029-62 (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While her tenure was extremely brief, Alcaraz was an actual member of the SFBOS, and should have an article like all the others. She was the first person of Filipino descent to serve on the BOS, which is significant. I don't believe that simply listing her as a "controversy" on Lurie's article does justice. Her appointment and subsequent resignation have now made national news as well (NYT). Funcrunch (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe in keeping because on a list of supervisors she would be a mystery if she was in red or black and people would wonder why. They could google her name and see she served a week but why not have that information here? Theissuesandthedebates (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is likely the first major scandal of Lurie's administration and there has been extensive press coverage surrounding it. When you have the editors-in-chiefs of flagship local papers penning acerbic op-eds there shouldn't even be a question of notability. And as Funcrunch noted, this became a national story. She does meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN because she was actually sworn into that office, and WP:BLP1E states that EACH of the three criteria needs to be met. The event that she is associated with is significant and she was a major figure - if not the major figure - in that event. So neither of those, narrowly read, can be grounds for the removal of the article.

But forget the bureaucracy for a moment. Right now, if you go to the COB's office and you ask for a roll of SF supervisors, her name is going to appear on that list into perpetuity. She's probably got an engraved placard sitting somewhere in the board chambers. If someone wants to figure out what happened to that official, this page is going to be an important resource. That alone warrants her inclusion in my book. And who knows, she might even make another bid at some point. Ice Vest (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another important factor to consider: she is possibly the shortest serving supervisor in San Francisco's history! Ice Vest (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP1E with mostly negative content outside of the run-of-the-mill coverage; at this point she's notable entirely for her appointment having been a bad decision. Coverage of her appointment, before the purchaser of her business came forward, was overwhelmingly about how unknown she was, including to her constituents. The desire for complete coverage of the Board of Supervisors doesn't outweigh the BLP considerations. Should be deleted and replaced with a redirect; it's a pity there isn't a District 4 article to serve as the target, so I suppose the relevant subsection of the Lurie article would be the best choice. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLITICIAN states we presume notability with elected officials and deletion precedent suggests that by custom, legislators of intl. recognized cities receive pages. Furthermore, it's not appropriate that the first Fillipina supervisor in the city's history exists only as a footnote on Lurie's record. Negativity of coverage does not affect WP:BLP1E compliance, see WP:What BLP1E is not. Ice Vest (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here, for example, we see coverage of her in the context of her *attaining political office,* not in the context of her being fired. So the BLP1E screen doesn't pass muster. The "one event" is her firing, but she also generated coverage of that independently of that as an appointed legislator, with the swearing in and so on. Ice Vest (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BLP1E strictly does not apply here since there are two events to speak of (her appoint and her dismissal). Even if you conceptualize the "one event" as her membership/term on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, it doesn't meet the 3rd prong of BLP1E "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". The event is significant - dismissing a politician is very commonly significant, especially when it achieves press coverage like this, and her role is both documented and substantial. As noted above, WP:What BLP1E is not applies here. Coverage is sufficient to pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, which means that she passes WP:NPOLITICIAN under "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage".Katzrockso (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She represented 80,000 people in an official capacity. She is notable for her appointment and abrupt resignation in scandal, two distinct events, therefore BLP1E does not apply. Deathying (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Size of jurisdiction does not matter for NPOL. However, I do not think BLP1E fits in this situation. --Enos733 (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local politicians are neither notable nor insignificant. While WP:POLOUTCOMES would generally favor a retention of a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the decision in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Chico does note that NPOL #2 is not an inherent way for any big city politician to have an article. NPOL #2 states that major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are presumed notable. In a note, significant press coverage is a figure who has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. She has not been the subject of significant profiles from multiple journalists let alone with any kind of sustained coverage. This article has fallen into the trap of creating an article on a news story covered in a bunch of local newspapers. I also have to disagree with the assertions that the single event criteria or WP:BLP1E would not apply here. 1) There is no consensus that appointments to local governments are notable. Thus it would not be notable that she was both appointed and quickly resigned. 2) Almost any event can be broken down into multiple little things. This would make any officeholder who does not lose an election or retire at the end of a term notable which flies in the face of numerous policies. --Mpen320 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither WP:POLOUTCOMES nor a specific AfD are binding on the decision here. Your comment here demands "significant press coverage is a figure who has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists", but this is not the requirement given by the WP:GNG for this subject to be notable. The WP:GNG states "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but does not require "news feature articles" (which I am taking to understand as a specific profile?). Editors certainly disagree about what constitutes WP:SIGCOV, but commonly WP:100WORDS about a subject is taken as one good indicator, and there are plenty more than 100 words written across many sources here.

Your argument about BLP1E is just as confused: nobody here is arguing that there is any sort of inherent notability to local government or that Beya Alcaraz is notable in virtue of having been appointed. The point is that her appointment and subsequent dismissal have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is enough for a WP:GNG pass. I think you may be confusing the counterargument that the story is significant with the point that it is notable. Moreover, a successful WP:BLP1E argument requires that all 3 prongs be met (see WP:What BLP1E is not), a requirement that is not met here. Above I argued that even if we accept that her tenancy as a San Francisco city council member can be understood as a single event (dubious), prong #3 is not satisfied. But I would also like to challenge prong #2: that she will remain a low-profile individual. She engaged in all the hallmarks of being a high-profile individual: seeking media attention, giving press conferences [26], giving interviews, etc. Indeed, becoming a politician (even one appointed) in a city as large as San Francisco almost inherently rebukes the idea that one can remain a low-profile individual. She had even given interviews before this whole political debacle! [27]. So here is another example of significant coverage for a different event (her pet store ownership) that once again refutes the third prong of BLP1E. Katzrockso (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how the phrase "While WP:POLOUTCOMES would generally favor a retention of a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors," could be interpreted as me thinking it is binding nor how directly quoting NPOL #2 to prove she fails to meet a subject specific guideline is irrelevant to the AfD. There is also no reason to think from what I have written that I consider a specific AfD binding either. While I disagree with you about GNG being met, be reassured if my views are as "confused" as you claim, then the experienced closers here will simply disregard them. --Mpen320 (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned POLOUTCOMES and another AfD, which I noted neither have any PAG bearing on the notability of this particular individual. Sorry if I misinterpreted you, but I don't know why you would bring them up unless you thought that they were relevant to the notability of the subject. Katzrockso (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I think she is/was irrelevant as far as San Francisco politics go. If anything her appointment to SFBOS highlights the political quid pro quo system operating in the shadows. She has zero qualifications, credentials or experience. Her "career" as a pet shop owner was created by her father — not as a result of her business acumen. I think her 7 day supe job can go into a section on Daniel Lurie's page under blunders/embarrassments. Either way, the current state of Alcazar's page is white-washed of all the illegal activity she was engaged in (i.e. paying workers under the table and cheating on her taxes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldrock95 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out double !vote.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:BLP1E does not apply as she is notable for being appointed and resigning with there also being coverage on her pet business. Point 3 is also not met as there is substantial coverage of the event and a member of the board resigning is significant. She passes the second point in WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG based on significant coverage of her in reliable sources. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was a mistake that lasted less than a week. She didn't win an election, she was appointed. Wikipedia doesn't have articles on hundreds of SFBOS that have served full terms. Bottom line: Alcaraz is an inconsequential and irrelevant political figure. This article screams of recency bias. Delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldrock95 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: Every member of the SFBOS since 2001 has had an article on Wikipedia. I created the article for Beya Alcaraz on that basis, on the same day her appointment was announced. Funcrunch (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting for the record that you already !voted on this AfD. Funcrunch (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As we already have numerous articles for members on the SFBOS, it has been established that holding such a position warrants an article, although some delete voters argue that serving for around a week renders her not notable, and as she is no longer in office, she will fade into irrelevance. However, coverage of her resignation from office has reached significant coverage from outlets such as the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle. As such, it is clear to me that this individual passes WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. TheInevitables (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that she has an government website as a former Supervisor with a bio that is going to be maintained, into perpetuity, by the Clerk of the Board. ~2025-34029-62 (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a point in favor I mean - pushing back on this idea that she’s not a “real” supervisor or deserving of the courtesies that we typically associate with that office. ~2025-34029-62 (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Raihanur (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has made the New York Times regarding the recent scandal: [[28]] and also the San Francisco Standard: [[29]] Agnieszka653 (talk)
Redirect to Daniel Lurie#Beya Alcaraz as subject is only notable for serving one week on SFBoS and resigning amidst scandal. Although this event, which I consider WP:BLP1E, has received SIGCOV, the notability is more about the mayor not properly vetting the subject. Coverage is unlikely to be WP:SUSTAINED. I don't think NPOL#2 applies here as the subject is not a "major local political figure". Thus the redirect will cover what happened for those concerned about having an encyclopedic entry about the incident. Nnev66 (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E and SUSTAINED can't apply because she also received SIGCOV for her pet store. [30], meaning there is more than one "event" Katzrockso (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She's passed on GNG and SIGCOV. Also, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply in this case per GothicGolem29. This is also applied for WP:BASIC. Some delete votes focus too much on BLP1E without looking to another guidelines (See:WP:NOTBLP1E), this rule is not meant to exclude people who have coverage from more than one event. On WP:POLITICIAN, Alcaraz meets the second point, as she was sworn in as a member of SFBOS. Using of WP:SUSTAINED is too early, since coverage is recent and already significant. Other members of SFBOS have articles, so it makes sense to keep hers for consistency. For the record, this is not about bias or her Filipino heritage but about applying notability rules fairly. Based on these points, there is no strong reason to delete. ROY is WAR Talk! 06:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In view of repeated relistings (and the whiff of badgering), Reaffirming my !vote for deletion. Membership in the Board of Supervisors does not automatically confer notability, and she was appointed to fill the remainder of a term, rather than elected. Except for initial coverage which noted that she was an ethnic "first" but also noted that she was relatively unknown, the coverage has all been relative to the failure of due diligence in selecting her, the negatives that led her to resign, and the record brevity of her tenure. For me, this is one event (mistaken selection); even if seen as two (selection, resignation), it hardly represents continuing coverage indicating enduring notability. Moreover, it's almost entirely negative. The article contains very little biographical info because she is only covered as a mistaken appointment and for the background of her bad business practices that made it mistaken. Borderline notability, negative BLP: policy and respect for the subject indicate that she should not have an article at this time. I would advocate deletion followed by the creation of a redirect; I don't think a section in the Lurie article is the best place, better a couple of lines in the article on her predecessor, Joel Engardio, or even better, a section in the Sunset Dunes article on the opposition in District 4 leading to the recall and her short-lived appointment. (Best would be an article on each supervisor district so that her name could redirect to District 4. There's an increasingly well documented story about District 4 bucking political trends in the rest of the city.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that membership in the BoS does not confer notability, but significant coverage about her in addition to previous significant coverage of her pet store ([31]) is enough to satisfy the WP:GNG and obviate BLP1E concerns (as noted above several times). There is more biographical information to be found both in that article and other material to expand it to not focus as much on the 'negative' information. Could also add more WP:ABOUTSELF info from [32]. Katzrockso (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the complete lack of any legislating that she's done, it seems inappropriate to justify WP:POLITICIAN. There is significant coverage about the whole debacle though but an "Appointment of Beya Alcaraz" article seems like a flimsy idea. And there's no good article to really redirect this topic toward as there is no History of Board of Supervisor page and nesting it under Daniel Lurie's page seems WP:UNDUE. Does holding office supersede WP:BLP1E? (she technically sought out the appointment so do we still categorize her as "low profile"?) -- BriefEdits (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think WP:NOTBLP1E applies here. The reliable sources cover the subject's pet store as well as her short-lived political career, so she does not meet WP:BLP1E #1. WP:CRYSTAL may come into play here, but it's unlikely she will remain a low-profile individual. Thus, she does not meet WP:BLP1E #2. Finally, both her hiring and firing were significant, her role substantial, and everything was well-documented, so she fails WP:BLP1E #3. She has enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG as well. There's no reason to delete, in my opinion, especially since every other official on the Board of Supervisors, both past and present since 2001, has an article.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:10, 8 December 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 14:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mazen Kalassina

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

All sources in the article are sponsored or featured posts about a single event and do not meet WP:RS standard and WP:1E also apply. A WP:BEFORE produced nothing convincing towards notability. Ednabrenze (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Lebanon. Ednabrenze (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E. This happened in summer, and there was no coverage since then. I don't even understand what is special about the AI output to his prompt that caused the media to report on it. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything notable here. The person or the supposed "event". Mainly seems to be an attempt at self-marketing. -- galenIgh 00:50, 14 December 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 TransMilenio stations#NQS Central. Star Mississippi 15:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CAD (TransMilenio)

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

Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 03:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: these sorts of articles are generally covered by WP:NTS Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stretch applying WP:NTS. We already have an article at TransMilenio. Not every smaller component of TransMilenio warrants its own page. Otherwise we would be writing articles on every single bus route or bus stop, etc. The system as a whole I could buy being covered under that policy, but not its small parts.4meter4 (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of TransMilenio stations#NQS Central, as there is precedent for redirecting non-notable stations to the station list on the lines they serve i.e. WP:ATD-R (Two examples that I previously participated in: One and Two). S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 13:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A quick google search in the news category shows dozens of articles of events in or around the station (mostly ~~minor~~ accidents [33] [34] [35] [36]) and some about the station (repairs, expansion of the station, new cars, temporary closing [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]). All of those articles are in Spanish and not all are RS, but there's enough to expand the article. While few stations are truly notable, I believe in this case there is enough coverage to keep the article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of TransMilenio stations#NQS Central. Some incidents related to the station may be reported in the news, but I failed to find any information about the station itself, for instance, the fact that it was opened in 2005. However, it is easy to find the following information about NQS Central, El 1 de julio de 2005, los buses articulados empezaron a rodar por la Avenida NQS desde la calle 92 y hasta la Autopista Sur. If it is decided to split the article, it is better to do this via various zones of TransMilenio, and not by individual stations. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:10, 13 December 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. Star Mississippi 15:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Batu Tiga–Sungai Buloh Highway

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

Article fails WP:No original research. Unreferenced since 2009. Not clear this road passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A common issue with articles on Malaysian State Routes is the lack of available sources and up-to-date information. Unlike Federal Routes, which are documented in annual statistical books published by the Malaysian Public Works Department (JKR), State Routes lack a standardised, centralised database. Instead, information must be sourced from individual JKR District Branches or maintenance contractors, as demonstrated in the list of state roads in Malaysia. In the same time, the Road junction lists are also not passed the format as per MOS:RJL. DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the state route, try to search in Google with native name first, or JKR Jalan "Road Code". DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DiaoBaoHuaJian: Even if there was content published by the Malaysian Public Works Department that wouldn't count here at AFD because those would be WP:PRIMARY government documents. Ditto on anything published by the JKR District Branches or maintenance contractors. Government sources are fine for using in articles, but they are not usable towards proving WP:SIGCOV. We need independent WP:SECONDARY sources with coverage to prove notability. The government and its contractors built the road and maintain it, so these are not independent sources.4meter4 (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the fence. Has two reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Huh? Did you read the sources? Neither source is about the highway itself. They cover a single minor traffic incident that happened on/near the highway. (Both sources are about the same event involving a truck making an illegal u-turn and causing an accident in which it hit a parked Proton Saga in a hospital parking lot just off the highway. Nobody was injured.). Routine coverage of traffic events is not WP:SIGCOV of the road.4meter4 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did I write "significant coverage"? Did I !vote? Read my words again. Then drop your stick and step away from the dead horse. Bearian (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STICK? Really? STICK is for when there has been lengthy discussion that has come to an intractable end, not for the beginning of a discussion, and certainly not for one single comment about sourcing in which I added new analysis. I only made the comment to prevent future editors from mindlessly voting keep because they might not have read the materials (which does happen with foreign language sources at AFD discussions). On another note, a bunch of WP:PRIMARY sources has now also been added to the article including citations to FACEBOOK. So far, no WP:SECONDARY sources on the highway itself have materialized. Doing a source analysis is a normal part of AFD discussion threads.4meter4 (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I don't think the sourcing in this state can support an independent article. Merge into Klang Valley#Transport or perhaps Transport in Greater Kuala Lumpur. --Lenny Marks (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 14:25, 8 December 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 which does not preclude a merger discussion Star Mississippi 15:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Class automorphism

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

Unreferenced since 2009. May be a WP:BADFORK of automorphism.4meter4 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Might also be OR. I only taught as high as 7th grade math and whatever was needed for AP Bio, so I don't know 100% for sure, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article presents a perfectly meaningful definition. All the content seems to be true. It is probably not original research, in the sense that if you presented any of the factual statements to a professional mathematician and said "was this known before 2006?" I think the answer would be "yes of course". Maps of this kind certainly come up in modern mathematics. However, I have never seen the name "class automorphism" applied to them; searching MathSciNet, zbMATH, Google Scholar, and arXiv finds 0 instances of thise phrase being used in this sense, and I am skeptical that they have ever been systematically studied. I don't think WP:BADFORK is relevant; if this were a fork of anything, it would be of Group automorphism. --JBL (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably rename. This is usually called a "class preserving automorphism" and it has been studied at least since 1911 by Burnside, then others later. Here is the groupprops page on the property. Here is a recent survey. I think this topic is probably notable in the sense of being studied by several different groups over the years, but I would not be opposed to a merge to a relevant target article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: Since you seem to understand this better than most of us, would you mind adding that source and fact checking what we have? I would be willing to change my vote if we clearly had content that is A. Not WP:OR and B. WP:Verifiable to WP:RS.4meter4 (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The groupprops page was written by the same person as our article; it's a shame they added sources and gave it the correct title in only one of the two places :/. (I had been searching for the string "class automorphism".) --JBL (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Group isomorphism. There is no separate page for Group automorphisms, it is not clear why we should have an article on a specific subset of automorphisms, especially in a situation where the parent article, Group isomorphism, is so poorly sourced. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we do merge this (I agree the current article is insufficiently sourced), the cleanest merge target would be Outer automorphism group. To quote from the first paragraph of the survey article Mark viking identified, The set of all class preserving automorphisms of $G$ , denoted by $Aut_{c}(G)$ , is a normal subgroup of $Aut(G)$ . ... The group of all class preserving outer automorphisms of G, i.e., $Aut_{c}(G)/Inn(G)$ is denoted by $Out_{c}(G)$ . A second paper, doi:10.2140/involve.2014.7.171, similarly focuses on the elements of $Out_{c}(G)=Aut_{c}(G)/Inn(G)$ (class-preserving outer automorphisms). Preimage (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every inner automorphism is a class-preserving one, so interesting class-preserving automorphisms are the outer ones. This is why they are the focus of the papers. At the same time, the group of class-preserving automorphisms is a normal subgroup of the automorphism group, so I would say it is better to cover it under Group automorphism. But I don't have a strong opinion about it and would be fine with any merge target. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:37, 13 December 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 Alekseyev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau as an obvious ATD. With no one arguing for retention, I see no reason to prolong this discussion. Owen× ☎ 14:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

А-300-538

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

Insufficient demonstration of notability. -- Beland (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Russia. Beland (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as below: nothing in reliable sources (mostly blogs and "security" sites) and there doesn't seem to be continued coverage. Seems like another case of miracle technology plans from Russia that never come to fruition or take decades to even reach serviceable prototype stage. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alekseyev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- to either List of ground-effect vehicles or the Alekseyev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau, scarce returns from additional searches, did find this maybe to add more context. too bad it seems to be more of a blog site.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 14:21, 8 December 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 County of Castell. Star Mississippi 15:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Castell-Remlingen

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

Fails WP:GNG. I was unable to verify the content in this article.4meter4 (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was a minor county but it certainly existed. See 1, 2 and 3. Mccapra (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed in this 1839 book as being a part of Bavaria [42] with population 9,700. Not sure what kind of polity it was at that point in time.

it was a county based on a fairly small town. As you say it seems to have been mediatised. Mccapra (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources are very confusing, because they seem to suggest that it's a branch of the House of Castell, rather than a geographic location (e.g. [43]).

It seems likely this was a mediatised house at that point in time, but we largely have only primary sources on this subject. Redirect to County of Castell unless someone can sort out this mess Katzrockso (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that a portion was split from Castell-Remlingen too, called Castell-Castell :) Geschichte (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a confusing tangle, and the sourcing isn't great... Hence why I said I couldn't verify our presentation. It doesn't help that the German wikipedia doesn't currently cover this either (not that it is always accurate).4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: I still support a redirect to County of Castell as an WP:ATD given that there are no sources that sufficiently verify this as a geographic place. Katzrockso (talk) 22:19, 10 December 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 13:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soboleva modified hyperbolic tangent

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

Essentially the same rationale as my nomination in the previous AFD in 2017: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modified hyperbolic tangent. It was closed as a soft delete, but apparently refunded and moved here. I don't think anything has substantially changed. Refs are a bit difficult to evaluate due to language and accessibility, but there doesn't seem to be any significant discussion of this function unto itself, as opposed to simply using it to study something else, which isn't really enough for notability. There are still WP:COI concerns over the original author as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not seem to be much on the topic of the function itself as stated in the nomination. I only find 19 references with the specific name in google scholar. Given its relatively shallow interest on the topic I would argue this is not significant and not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This function is not notable by itself, the applications seem anecdotical. Also seems to be a clear case of a COI. jraimbau (talk) 06:49, 12 December 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 11:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morpho (lending network)

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

NCORP fail. All sources are unreliable crypto sources and a google doesn't reveal anything more substantial. Fermiboson (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Companies. Fermiboson (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero evidence of WP:NCRYPTO whatsoever. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, for all the reasons listed above. Always happy to delete another awful crypto rugpull article. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 04:09, 14 December 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 14:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry, Indiana

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

It's been a long time since we've come across a dot added from a state highway map, but here we are. Looking at the topos, if this place was real at all, it was a rail point; older ones show an interlocking at this point. The line is completely gone, and I'm not getting anything, notwiothstanding that this is awful for searching. The 1921 county history has lots of people named Henry, but no mention of a town. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another mysterious non-place that didn't appear on topo maps until 2010: [44]. There was never anything there other than railroad tracks, not even any buildings. Obviously not a community; fails WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:01, 10 December 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 14:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadiq Isu

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

Article's sources are mostly press statements and announcements about a company he founded that give him trivial mentions. A WP:BEFORE turned up nothing to pass notability. It fails WP:BIO. Ednabrenze (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did a cursory search and couldn't find useful links to establish notability. In-article sources do not provide the substantial coverage we are looking for. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What then can be done for this article to stay? Favourdare123 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is all routine and not significant. 🄻 🄰 13:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Pereda

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

Fails GNG. I cannot locate any SIGCOV for this college softball player. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Softball. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:57, 8 December 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. Star Mississippi 15:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Hussey (researcher)

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

I accepted this at WP:AFC believing it stood more than a 50% chance of surviving an WP:AFD, reviewer User:Mmemaigret disagrees so I am bringing it here for community discussion. Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. While my own WP:BEFORE is ongoing, the references which support the text do not support a claim to notability. (Not the primary birth record. Not the DIB entry for the subject's father (which doesn't even mention titular subject by name). Not the father's book (which also doesn't mention the titular subject by name). And the other sources, including the passing mentions in Kark and Frantzman (2010), are largely just "name drops" where the subject is discussed among lists of people seemingly in the Garden Tomb association.) As it stands, personally don't see that the subject has notability independent of father and the Garden Tomb association [incl. Bent]). Guliolopez (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my recommendation to a (granted weak) delete. As noted above, the sources and coverage don't appear to support a "keep". In my own WP:BEFORE (and those seemingly undertaken by others), no sources have been identified which cover the subject as a topic in own right or in any material depth. While, yes, the Kark and Frantzman article (2010) does mention the subject slightly more times than others in the Garden Tomb association, this isn't what one would typically consider WP:SIGCOV. The other sources (which actually mention the subject by name) are largely passing mentions in works/webpages where the primary topic is something else. Guliolopez (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

tentative keep vote. She appears to have been a somewhat prominent figure in the pre-War British community in Palestine, as indicated by that Dickson/Dunn affair. Granted, that affair does not grant notability, and her family/father doesn't either, also not her later employment in Kerry. What does, however, is the G.T.A.: The Kerk&Frantzman article points at many people "in passing", but those are minor supporters of the G.T.A. while Hussey is mentioned four times, and among those: Another prominent female donor and driver behind the purchase fund was Charlotte Hussey. Miss Hussey was later a resident in Palestine who oversaw the tomb, and as late as 1923 she was making discoveries in the grounds of the tomb. She also edited Arthur Crawley-Boevey’s book on the tomb, Golgotha, which was published in the same decade. That is less of a passing mention, as it makes her the second-most influential woman in the Garden Tomb land purchase, after Miss Hope who was the ringleader and grey eminence.
I am not sure however if the "researcher" suffix does her much credit: I would have chosen "activist", given that she was apparently not a scientist or archaeologist, but had apparently moved to Jerusalem with religious/missionary zeal. Another fitting suffix could be "archaeology", given that her long stay in Palestine apparently resulted in her interest in the topic, and it would also narrow down "researcher" which could refer to any science-adjacent environment.
P.S.: I found an offline publication under her name, Miss C. Hussey, "The Tomb Near the Skull Hill, Jerusalem," Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 31.2 (Mar. 1899): 130-131., not sure if these two pages might be helpful. --Enyavar (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the points raised by User:Enyavar, Hussey was the editor of the journal of the Kerry Archaeological Society, which could be viewed as meeting WP:PROF criteria #8 though I realize the journal is not a 'major' academic journal. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - solid article on an important woman in STEM. Moondragon21 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to draftspace or Merge with Garden Tomb: The acceptance was premature and so was this AfD. Even with the sources subsequently added, there is only 1 sig cov. MmeMaigret (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted this in good faith, AFD was the logical next step because of your disagreement. Theroadislong (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong If that was the case, I would have nominated it myself. You could have added a BLP sources template and added it to the Women in Red WikiProject. I would still suggest you do that. MmeMaigret (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have been persuaded by the coverage in The weekend that changed the world : the mystery of Jerusalem's empty tomb and journals. Also agree with Enyavar to change (researcher) to (archaeology), as researcher is too broad a field. SDGB1217 (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCPDAB it should be moved to archaeologist. I am neutral on the moving because it implies other pages about researchers with the same name.User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep per SDGB. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:47, 12 December 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 United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative. Star Mississippi 15:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance

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

Sources are all primary, or press releases. A Google search turns up nothing better. Just a big list of companies who happened to sign some agreement; many of the listed companies are not notable themselves. MediaKyle (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. MediaKyle (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources presented on the article, the subject seems notable.RolandSimon (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate? Sources are presented, yes. I'm saying the sources presented are not GNG-worthy. MediaKyle (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could potentially redirect to United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (or a subsection thereof) where it is currently mentioned in the interim. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. ~RAM (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative . Among the five sources in the article, three are from UNEPFI. One is from WWF, which reports on the creation of the group and provides little independent content, and one is by responsible-investor.com, which is paywalled, but the title is "NZAOA to allow ‘observer’ members but sticking to 1.5C," so the coverage is probably routine. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:21, 12 December 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 page's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Western Harbour Tunnel & Beaches Link

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

This page serves very little purpose. I highly doubt anyone is seeking to find articles on the Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link in the same search query, especially considering that Beaches Link has now been canceled. This disambiguation page uses an ampersand which is not a character that is easily accessible on the keyboard, you have to use greater intention to type that instead of writing "and", ampersands are discouraged in titles per WP:AMPERSAND. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Transportation, Disambiguations, and Australia. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary disambiguation page. LibStar (talk) 22:42, 8 December 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 14:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Sy

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Most references are from GMA Integrated News, which is his employer, or are WP:INTERVIEWs, failing WP:PRIMARY. Some references are indeed third party, but are of the WP:PROMOTIONAL type. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:51, 8 December 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. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: without prejudice to re-creation if better sources become available. The current sourcing relies heavily on promotional materials and press releases (WP:PROMO), which fails the independence requirement of WP:GNG. The subject appears to be at the start of their career, and current coverage is routine. ACROM12 [TALK] 11:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not passed per WP:NACTOR and WP:NOTPROMO. ROY is WAR Talk! 01:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a WP:TOOSOON issue. GNews Search just gave different Ryan Sy's --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CU Note The author of the original redirect is the sock of a blocked spammer. No comment on the temporary account that turned the redirect into an article. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 15:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arvic Tan

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Most references are from GMA Integrated News and ABS-CBN News, which are his employers, failing WP:PRIMARY. Some references are indeed third party, do not provide WP:GNG coverage. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Food and drink, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Arvic Tan meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR based on significant coverage in independent sources such as . These sources are ned with his employers and provide substantial coverage. Madame Joaquin (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such as...? His employers are WP:PRIMARY and are not WP:RS, failing WP:GNG, no matter how extensive. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. The sources are mostly primary (from his home network GMA) or just routine event coverage like the meat festival. Doesn't look like he passes WP:NACTOR yet. ACROM12 [TALK] 12:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although he passed on number one at WP:NACTOR: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, notable television shows, stage performances, or other notable productions., he's still not notable per WP:SIGCOV or WP:ROUTINE. ROY is WAR Talk! 21:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of his appearances on scripted TV series are "significant roles":
- Valiente (2012 TV series) is a cameo
- Luv U, Trops, D' Originals, TODA One I Love, The Lost Recipe are tagged as guest cast
- Be Careful with My Heart is supporting cast (probably the most extensive, but not the "main cast" which should pass for as "significant role")
- Other works are not even linked. This !vote should be tagged as misleading.
Howard the Duck (talk) 16:10, 13 December 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. G5 speedy-deleted by Girth Summit. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Kevin Biol

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Most references are from GMA Integrated News, which is his employer, failing WP:PRIMARY. Some are not WP:RS as per WP:LIONHEARTV. Some references are indeed third party, but are of the WP:PROMOTIONAL type. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 8 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Roque IV

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Most references are from ABS-CBN, which is his employer, failing WP:PRIMARY. Some references are indeed third party, but are of the WP:PROMOTIONAL type. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON for MMA notability too per Wikipedia:Notability (sports) --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:Nactor. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 08:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CU Note The author of the original redirect is the sock of a blocked spammer. No comment on the temporary account that turned the redirect into an article. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks of WP:SIGCOV, failed on WP:NACTOR. ROY is WAR Talk! 09:30, 15 December 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 Mirmo!#Plot. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mirmo! characters

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

Unreferenced list, except for 1 primary source (official site). Didn't see any reliable sources talking about the characters as a whole. Redirect to Mirmo!#Plot as an alternative to deletion? Mika1h (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Anime and manga, and Lists. Mika1h (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Mika1h: You should have done bold redirect instead. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mirmo!#Plot per nom. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mirmo!: per nom - no evidence of standalone notability per NLIST. Gommeh 📖 🎮 12:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, some content could be merged if someone can verify it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:54, 9 December 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 14:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Horror School

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

Fails WP:GNG. I didn't find any significant coverage for this series, in either English or Japanese. Even The Anime Encyclopedia doesn't have an entry for the series. Could be redirected to List of programmes broadcast by Animax#M or 2003 in anime#Television series as an alternative to deletion. Mika1h (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Anime and manga, and Japan. Mika1h (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This anime aired in the era where internet was in low state. From what I know, the Japanese Wikipedia article has non-website references, mostly offline newspapers. However, I'm not good with pre-internet sources from any country, so I can't help with this. By the way, can anyone please give me an example of IRS SIGCOV for TV series? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: Of the 13 references provided on the Japanese article, #7 is from the December 2003 issue of Animame published by Gakken. 9 to 11 are from October 2003 issue of 北國新聞 newspaper. If anyone actually has access to those, how in-depth they are? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no plot section or reception section, the latter of which hints at not passing GNG, although GNG may be met by the offline sources mentioned by Clara. The article definitely is not in good shape, and if it's kept it needs to be rewritten. Gommeh 📖 🎮 12:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't look to be notable and there doesn't seem to be any good alternative like redirecting. Link20XX (talk) 01:26, 11 December 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. No point wasting editors' time. Schwede 66 06:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of city and town nicknames in New Zealand

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

This is a very trivial list, unnecessary as a standalone article. any notable nickname will no doubt be listed on the relevant city's/town's article. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced list of a defined set of nicknames, providing an overview of city nicknames in NZ.. PamD 07:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can see no reason why this should be deleted, especially as there are similar lists for a dozen other countries (and this list is far better referenced than several of them). Whether they are also listed on the pages of the individual centres is irrelevant - a centralised list is a useful and encyclopedic thing. Grutness...wha? 08:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nicknames are all referenced and have decent coverage. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources use these nicknames. There is also news coverage of nicknames in New Zealand at https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/lifestyle/travel/mike-yardley-city-nicknames/ already referenced in the article. Dream Focus 15:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Speedy Per sources and other arguments above. Not a very convincing argument for deletion whatsoever. Quite frankly, the rationale of very trivial is mainly a concern about poorly sourced content, or WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on Category:City nicknames by country this seems to be a globally accepted form of lists on Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 03:37, 9 December 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 15:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GrooveWorx

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV all the way (complete lack of sources) and should be deleted. ConeKota (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking at the article history, there have been edits by accounts Grooveworx, then Grooveman222, adding uncited lists of media on which the firm has worked, and removal of an Advert tag. AllyD (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A barely-cited article about a firm going about its business. While it seems likely that sources could be found to confirm various claimed media works, that would not provide the coverage about the company which is required for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 13:22, 15 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PRISM+

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

This company probably has *some* degree of notability, although I will see what other editors have to say. It is mainly an online entity that simply puts its branding on OEM parts, and the article reads very much like an advert. I just don't think it warrants its own article in its current state. Aleain (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this very much reads like an advert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nooled (talk • contribs) 08:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)Bold text[reply]

I agree. Very obviously an advert Nooled (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current state of the article does not meet WP:GNG, so WP:TNT applies here. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Cortador (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — there is some coverage of the subject, although much of it looks fairly routine or promotional. At least at first glance, I'm not convinced it rises to the level of substantial, third-party coverage expected for a separate entry. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:30, 15 December 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 14:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perritos de sandia

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

The source link is broken. I cannot verify the existence of this taxon in any reliable sources. Google search shows Wikipedia mirrors and unreliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any sources scholarly or otherwise. Links are broken. Article was originally generated by a bot using an IUCN page that is also broken. Mostly seeing pictures of watermelon-covered shiba inus these days... Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Archive.org has a copy of the IUCN page ([45]). The IUCN page likely still exists somewhere, although the link in the article is indeed broken. There are dozens of articles on undescribed species created by Polbot based on IUCN records. Being undescribed, they do not meet the logic of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. I think they should be nominated for deletion as a group, not picked out one single article at a time. I had PRODded several of them in January 2024 on the belief that the IUCN records had been deleted, but dePRODded them myself after I realized that the last of the ones I'd PRODded, Pachypanchax sp. nov. 'Sofia' did in fact still have an existing IUCN record. The IUCN link in the taxonbar of "Pachypanchax sp. nov. 'Sofia'" is broken, but there are working IUCN links in the single reference of that article. "Pachypanchax sp. nov. 'Sofia'" was edited in November 2021 with an update to the IUCN link. Most articles on IUCN listed species also had links updated around that time, but the articles that weren't edited in 2021 may now have non-working links. Note that the broken links generally end in /all or /0 (the broken link in the taxonbar of "Pachypanchax sp. nov. 'Sofia'" ends in 44486/0 , while the working link in the reference ends in 44486/10899847). I have no idea how to find a working link on IUCN for "Perritos de sandia", but I am pretty confident the page exists still exists somewhere. Polbot created articles on undescribed fish species with non-working IUCN links should be nominated for deletion as a group (the other ones I had previously PRODded are Paratilapia sp. nov. 'Lac Ihotry', Paratilapia sp. nov. 'Vevembe', Nothobranchius aff. taeniopygus and Pachypanchax sp. nov. 'Analava', although that is still only a handful of the existing articles with the same issue). Plantdrew (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I agree with Plantdrew's analysis above, I think we are looking at a simpler situation in these cases. WP:NSPECIES is based on the fundamental assumption that there exists a valid description for the taxon, which on its own should already provide sufficient reliable sourcing for a short article. This is not available for undescribed species, the suitability of which must therefore be judged on availability of other material. Which is demonstrably lacking in this case - there is nothing in the bibliography of the archived IUCN article that suggests more extensive coverage (the Harrison & Stiassny ref is 11 years younger than the first assessment!). I don't know if similar circumstances apply to the other species mentioned above, but I would expect so. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I confess I'm struggling to see what the original source for the IUCN listing was, but I agree that (unless more sources can be identified) this does not warrant an article of its own. It may warrant a passing mention in Cyprinodon, so perhaps merge and redirect? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew, Surtsicna, J Milburn, and Elmidae: Found the IUCN entry, it's right here [46]. Following the paper trail, it leads me to this book (page 195) under the section Bólson de Sandia where it describes some scientists discovering a new basin with springs which contained undescribed species of Cyprinodon related to Cyprinodon alvarezi. However, when scientists tried visiting again, these areas dried up and the species went extinct.Zemblya (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zemblya:, thank you for tracking that down. Can you share any techniques that allowed you to find it (since there are other articles with broken IUCN links)? Plantdrew (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: If you pick a later date say, 2019 on that web archive page you linked, it will link redirect you to the new entry. Not sure why they decided to remove that. Zemblya (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly more time is needed to discuss this nomination. BD2412 T 04:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 04:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; undescribed species do not meet the requirements of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, and this undescribed species doesn't appear notable. Plantdrew (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:V. Bearian (talk) 04:03, 9 December 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 15:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood Squares (band)

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

Article seems to have had no sources since 2006. I found a single news article relating to this band, only other things are references to the show or a song, so no SIGCOV Shredlordsupreme (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and California. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per failure of WP:NBAND. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 05:05, 13 December 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 03:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Martian

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

I'm working on the unreferenced articles backlog. I can't seem to find any reliable sources for this particular comic book character, let alone significant coverage. Nothing from a general search, nothing in Books, nothing in databases like Newspapers.com or the Internet Archive. All with the three different possible names. So this seems to be a WP:GNG failure. Silver seren^C 02:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:49, 8 December 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 03:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando LGBT+

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

I've checked for sources, but I've not found anything that could meet WP:ORG. Everything has from potentially skewed or primary sources, near full republishings of press releases, or is brief. I checked Google and Google News and came up empty handed, but maybe someone might find something in Greek, but I'm skeptical of it. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies, Organizations, and Behavioural science. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Docmoates (talk) 12:10, 8 December 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 01:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pleines

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

This biography seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. Searches found no sources with significant coverage of the article subject. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 01:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 01:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of characters in the Terminator franchise#Rev-9. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rev-9

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

There's a dearth of critical reception that demonstrates this character was notable apart from the film itself in the article at present, and going looking it's either more press from the time of the film or unreliable sources we wouldn't use. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:23, 8 December 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 Film. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is notable, well-sourced, exists for many years, and was translated into several languages. What is the reason to delete?

In the past, it was already nominated for deletetion but was voted to stay.

Lamro (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link the discussion you are talking about? I don't see a past AFD template on the article's talk page and this AFD doesn't say "2nd nomination" in the title. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are either WP:ROUTINE, WP:VALNET, or don't have WP:SIGCOV. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in the Terminator franchise#Rev-9 – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in the Terminator franchise#Rev-9 - Its fairly rare for characters that appeared in a single movie of a franchise to have enough coverage to warrant a separate article, and I am not seeing anything to indicate that this one meets the notability threshold. That said, there is a character list for the franchise, so merging to the appropriate section there is a valid WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. ~2025-39656-21 (talk) 23:58, 9 December 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 01:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Duckworth

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources. The only references in the article are either primary to clubs the subject played for or are routine signing announcements, and I couldn't find anything better elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Demt1298 (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:32, 9 December 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 01:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sera (musician)

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

Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:SINGER. SpragueThomson^talk 00:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Uganda. SpragueThomson^talk 00:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 14:35, 8 December 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.