Wikipedia:XfD today

Speedy deletion candidates

Articles

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< November 03	November 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

One Two Three and Away

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

Can't find any reliable sources from news media, no evidence of notability outside of primary sources. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tend to think it can be salvaged by draftifying and reworking. Mag2k (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Draftify and re-work the page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Root, Betty (1986). In Defence of Reading Schemes. Reading: Reading and Language Information Centre, University of Reading School of Education. p. 7. ISBN 0-7049-0366-0. Retrieved 2025-11-02 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "One, Two, Three and Away! Collins 1964. Although the first publishing date of this scheme appears to suggest it might be outdated, this is by no means true. One, Two, Three and Away! first appeared as a series of twelve readers but these were so well received it has now been extended into a very comprehensive reading programme containing big books and little books, 114 readers, early reading card games, 8 phonic card games, work books, comprehension cards, STILE activities, wooden and felt character figures etc. The continued success of this programme lies in the quality of story the books contain and a publisher sensitive to the growing needs of teachers. It has never remained static and the author, Sheila McCullagh, has consistently added more imaginative resources to keep this scheme in the forefront of popularity. Although the vocabulary is well controlled in the early stages it is not contrived. One, Two, Three and Away certainly provides children with a good long runway so that they are able to launch themselves into fluent independent reading"
2. Root, Betty (1983-01-07). "Leading readers along the right path: Betty Root surveys some of the available materials". The Times Educational Supplement. Retrieved 2025-11-02 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "One Two Three and Away Hart Davis) is an excellent illustration of how this can be achieved. Sheila McCullagh magically continues to extend this series without any loss of quality; she remains sensitive to the needs of teachers and children in all she writes. One Two Three and Away, despite Its 166 items, is not difficult to organize in a classroom. Recent additions include pre-readers 9-12; Introductory M-P (making 38 little books before Book 1); and six new Hum-mingbirds, with some easier Hummingbirds promised later. The publisher, Learning Development Aids, has recently provided a One, Two Three and Away version of Stile, which contains a variety of activities associated with the readers. Stile is very popular with children of all ages - it is both flexible and satisfying to use."
3. "Reading and Composition: One, Two, Three and Away!". The Times Educational Supplement. No. 2591. 1965-01-15. p. 89. ProQuest 2312112759.
  The abstract notes: "This is a simple and attractive reading series for infants, with additional play and teaching material, which will please the busy teacher by its very simplicity. When copies were put in one book corner the children were immediately drawn to them, and once they had looked at the back, with its colourful map, and a suspicion of a mystery maze beloved of children's comics-- what a grand idea this! -the right motivation was apparent and the stories and delightful pictures by Eccles did the rest."
4. Stone, Susheila (1988-11-11). "One, Two, Three and Away. Dual Language Support Packs: Bengali: Gujarati". The Times Educational Supplement. No. 3776. ProQuest 2250966646.
  The abstract notes: "Collins Educational have published 22 of the most popular titles in their One, Two, Three and Away reading scheme by Sheila McCullagh in dual language editions. Each pack of 22 titles is available in four versions: Bengali/ English, Punjabi/English, Gujarati/ English and Urdu/English."
5. Harling, Paul (1982-07-16). "Read right on!: One Two Three and Away!". The Times Educational Supplement. No. 3446. p. 22. ProQuest 2637009390.
  The abstract notes: "Paul Harling on junior schemes". The entry notes: "Author of reviewed work McCullagh, Sheila; Flowerdew, Phyllis; Moon, Cliff; Dr Seuss".
6. "One Two Three and Away! Nos. 7-12". The Times Educational Supplement. No. 2652. 1966-03-18. p. 831. ProQuest 2271668293.
  The entry notes: "Author of reviewed work McCullagh, Sheila K".
7. "Janet and John for the high jump: Jeremy Bugler looks at the new reading books which are consigning the jerk-jerk chatter inanities to the dustbin". The Guardian. 1976-11-30. p. 13. ProQuest 185934809.
  The article notes: "A modern scheme ke One-Two-Three-And-Away!, by Sheila McCullagh, has an approach which ensures that when the children pick up their very first reading books they are in familiar territory. The ability to recognise word and decode is developed alongside the text, which is familiar because the children meet the schemes' characters — fellows called Roger Red Hat and Billy Blue Hat — before they start to read. 'he scheme's imaginary landscape — a place called The Village Wit!: Three Corners – is literally made by the children, who may play with models of the characters. The teacher tells them a story related to their books before they tackle them. Each story is a real story, with something happening, and very quickly the children are reading interesting stories."
8. Sims, Patricia (2002) [2001]. Reasons and Remedies (2 ed.). Barnstaple, Devon: Mortimore Books. p. 80. ISBN 0-9536209-2-1. Retrieved 2025-11-02 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Having chosen an appropriate book, which will have only one, or perhaps two short sentences per page, the adult might read the entire book to the child. If the well-weathered One, Two, Three and Away! scheme (written by Sheila McCullagh and published by Collins Educational) were being used, for example, the adult would then return to the first page and say, "Here is Roger Red-hat", pointing in turn to each word as it is spoken (Introductory Book A). Then he says, "Which word do you want me to point to? You choose a word for me to point to", rereading the words as much as seems necessary to help the child and allowing him to help hold the book. When a word has been selected and duly pointed to, the adult chooses one from the remaining words for the child to point to, repeating and drawing attention to the text again, in a relaxed way and as much as is necessary to ensure suc-cess. Such a procedure could be repeated for say, two or even three more pages, so that the adult and child have perhaps covered, 'Here is Roger Red-hat', 'Here is Roger's hat', 'Roger's hat is red', 'Rip is Roger's dog' and 'Here is Mr. Red-hat'. The youngster is being encouraged to scan for words (this being an important skill for the future)."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow One, Two, Three and Away! to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear some more opinions and reviews of sources brought into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burihati High School, Mirzapur

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

Fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Similar or even more notable articles were deleted. See ~ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajshahi Cantonment Public School and College.. ~ Raihanur (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kelly (soccer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NATHLETE with a very short career and with nothing saying whether he has retired or not. Since it says he hasn't played in Nine Years, it would be hard to see him play again considering he is 34. Appears to be non notable failing GNG as well. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, United States of America, Arizona, Illinois, and Missouri. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was previously deleted in 2015: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Kelly (soccer) but would likely be ineligible for G4 considering his signing with Arizona United would have been added after deletion, hence it would not have been identical. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All-time Phoenix Rising FC roster#K. Fails GNG due to a lack of SIGCOV. While Mr. Kelly has played for other teams besides Arizona United (now known as Phoenix Rising), he has played a majority of his career for this club and his other clubs do not have a roster article. Willing to reconsider if additional coverage is found, so please ping me. Frank Anchor 17:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't think redirecting to a single snapshot (In this case team they play for) is the best thing to do. He is also mentioned at 2015 Saint Louis FC season keep in mind. I am aware they are a defunct team, but still. Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Riku Moriyama

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

This article is about a seemingly unnotable voice actress for whom I can't find any real coverage. The only source is a Japanese source from 2008. The majority of the content is a short list of roles she played and not about the actress herself. Pyrrhic victor (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pyrrhic victor (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward McGill Alexander

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

Difficult to spot in swathes of routine career padding but nothing evident that fulfils WP:GNG. Few refs and largely by the subject himself. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Francis

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

Fails WP:NATHLETE with the article only mentioning that he competed in the 25 metre pistol event at the 1972 Summer Olympics, and literally nothing else. Redirect to Venezuela at the 1972 Summer Olympics #Shooting where this is mentioned at target per WP:CHEAP, WP:BLAR, AND WP:ATD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Olympics, Latin America, and Venezuela. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Frei

(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. A redirect to Switzerland at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Wrestling may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Wrestling, and Switzerland. Let'srun (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Switzerland at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Wrestling per WP:CHEAP, WP:ATD and WP:BLAR. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelos Voultsos

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE and it only mentions that he was on the Greek Water Polo roster for the 1972 Olympics. Redirect to Greece at the 1972 Summer Olympics#Water polo where this is mentioned at target per WP:BLAR, WP:CHEAP and WP:BLAR. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, Olympics, and Greece. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Terri

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

This BLP is basically unsourced. When created, it had a user generated source that was later deleted and a Mypsace page as a source, also later deleted. The only remaining source is a dead link referencing a Suicide Girls interview, which even if it wasn't linked to an IP address instead of the Suicide Girls website, would be a primary source and therefore unacceptable for establishing notability. WP:BEFORE gave me absolutely nothing except more User Generated stuff, like Discogs listings, Social Media and the like. The article makes claims of the media comparing her to Wendy O. Williams but that is nowhere to be found. She has been a guest vocalist for a couple members of The Dammed, but notability is not inherited. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO. — Maile (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sign of anything resembling WP:N. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ŽRK Velenje

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

Fails WP:GNG, a semi-professional local women's handball club which never won anything and never competed at international level. There is no coverage outside of primary sources or some very short routine result reports, like this, which isn't enough. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Handball and Slovenia. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the general notability guideline, lacking significant coverage by multiple independent sources. Although tagged regarding sports notability that category has no criteria for handball clubs. Searching finds some facebook content and sports statistics pages, nothing indepth beyond the numbers. Creator suggested more was coming in 2009 but never returned. Happy to reconsider if better sources are located. Gab4gab (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disasterina (drag queen)

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

Fails WP:NENTERTAINER, has so far been a participant in a single reality TV franchise, no WP:SIGCOV outside of that. WP:PSEUDO also applies. In the same way that we do not have articles for every participant on other reality shows (Big Brother for example), appearing on this show does not automatically assume notability. --wooden superman 12:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 12:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Entertainer. There's a longstanding standard that individuals who have competed on two TV series (even within the same franchise) meet notability criteria. There's no reason to move the goalposts here. Article should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a spin-off season of the same franchise, which clearly does not meet the criteria in WP:NENTERTAINER for "multiple notable television shows". --wooden superman 13:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Entertainer, for the same reasons Another Believer stated. Cornmazes (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Entertainer, for the same reasons Another Believer stated.Naraht (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Merely being on a reality show(s) does not indicate an automatic pass of WP:NENTERTAINER. The subject has to demonstrate that their contribution to the show was significant per that language in the SNG guideline. The sourcing here doesn't demonstrate that what Disasterina did on these reality shows was in fact "significant". A redirect to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula is a plausible WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two citations are not enough for a BLP, especially when one is by a blog. Ping me if you find and add better sources. Redirect is a viable option. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of The Boulet Brothers' Dragula contestants, but I think all the links in are from the template so I dont think we need to redirect. ←Metallurgist (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deleterina this Disasterina as failing WP:SIGCOV. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plainly fails GNG and nothing indicates a significant role in these shows. —Rutebega (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golden pitch

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

This is not a notable term or concept. WP:RECENTISM given the 2025 World Series is at play. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Baseball. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Groeneveld

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Non notable person. Followed some of the links through Wayback archive, the conference one was only some words written by the person themselves. No SIGCOV. Equine-man (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Party Secretary of Xi'an

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

There were no sources cited. Leaks WP:GNG RealStanger43286 (Let's talk!) 14:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources. The Account 2 (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly presumed notable. This is like "governor of kansas". Czarking0 (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Czarking0. - Amigao (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

X-Dynasty

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

Fails Wikipedia general notability guidelines. It has three sources which are either not reliable like this, and this. The only manageable source is this, which cannot establish the subject's notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely nothing to establish WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO here. Nothing useful came from a cursory search. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mill Hill (Barnstable County, Massachusetts)

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

Tiny "mountain" standing at 85 ft (26 m) fails WP:NATFEAT: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river".

Sources in books are directory-type mentions. This contains a couple of sentences, but at best, this mound would be worth one sentence in Orleans, Massachusetts, redirecting there. Either that or delete outright. Geschichte (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete The coordinates are slightly off so it took me a minute to find it on the maps, but it turns out to be entirely encompassed by the easternmost exit ramps of the interchange to the SSW of the point given in the article. And it's elevation is so slight as to be unrecognizable from the overpass; when you follow the ramp around you see a hillside but the only reason this has a name now is because it (and the hill) predate the roads. Given the lack of any other data I'm inclined to delete this as too minor to bother with. Mangoe (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woo Seo-bin

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. No significant coverage in sources, only trivial, routine and passing mentions were found.

1 - Passing mention.
2 - Passing mention.
3 - Three mentions, nothing beyond his performance in a game.
4 - Two passing mentions, a routine coverage.
5 - 3 passing mentions.
6 - one passing mention.
8 - News about winning a college goalkeeper award, not a significant award as it is not mentioned at WP:NCOLLATH. Zalaraz (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Zalaraz (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Country changes in figure skating

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

Nothing but WP:SYNTHESIS and dated anecdotes; nothing about this topic warrants a standalone article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Skating. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: SYNTH, this happens with different athletes, not unique to figure skating. Sourcing is mostly news articles about XYZ person changing, nothing about the topic in general. I don't see that this is different than any other international sport. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adora Nwodo

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

I can't see how she meets the notability criteria Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Engineering, Software, Nigeria, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nigerian promotional article, won a 40-under-40 award per my searches [1], which isn't notable for our purposes. Typical flowery language, I don't see AUTHOR being met either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John W. DenBoer

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

I declined a WP:G4 tag on this, as the article appears to be somewhat different to the previous version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John DenBoer; additionally, some comments at the previous AfD gave the impression this was a "not yet" instead of "not ever". However, other comments suggested this was a BLP nightmare. So, I think a fresh discussion is best. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This article should be deleted because most of the sources are self-written research papers or interviews/profile pieces and there is 'no independent news or in-depth coverage' showing that John W. DenBoer is notable. The Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners issued a 'Cease & Desist Order' against him for representing himself as a licensed psychologist after his license was revoked: Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners – Cease & Desist Order, which raises questions about credibility. This article is basically a 'recreation' of a previously deleted page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John_DenBoer, deleted 1 Nov 2022) and does 'not provide any independent coverage'. All the sources seem user-generated or paid. Therefore, it does 'not meet Wikipedia's notability rules' (WP:GNG) and should be deleted. — Evaowen (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close per WP:SNOW. First of all, this is a notable physician who has valid academic citations. He is also featured in a documentary film and has a TEDx talk. There are plenty of physicians with this level of notability who have absolutely no problems at all staying on Wikipedia, but DenBoer is being intentionally singled out because some angry people out there really dislike him.

Secondly, Evaowen popped out of nowhere to try to get the article deleted. Wikipedia has policies against libel, smear campaigns, and people trying to get articles deleted because of personal agendas and vendettas. This is absolutely uncalled for and has no place on Wikipedia.

Thirdly, archived versions of John DenBoer show that the article looked overly promotional and wasn't suitable as encyclopedic content at the time (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John DenBoer), but now it's been written from scratch again with multiple reliable sources, and the subject also has gained a lot.

Speedy keep, speedy close, and stop the nonsense. Jayyoungiscool (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Medicine, Psychology, Sports, Arizona, Massachusetts, and Montana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayyoungiscool Please keep the discussion focused on content and sourcing, not editors. AfD decisions are based on verifiable, independent, and reliable sources, not opinions.The WP:SNOW argument is not valid here — this is an active AfD discussion with differing views.

So far, no such sources have been presented. TEDx talks, self-published research, or affiliated documentaries do not establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:BLP.

Your comments appear strongly biased toward keeping the article regardless of sourcing, which gives the impression of a conflict of interest. If you believe the subject is notable, please provide independent, in-depth coverage from reputable publications.Evaowen (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AstralShiftPro

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

The only SIGCOV I can find about this company is an interview, so it appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Redirecting to Little Goody Two Shoes (video game) is a potential WP:ATD given that it appears to be their only standalone notable product. Notability is not inherited from that game, however. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Portugal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hect

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

Lack of independent sigcov. Most sources are for Moon Crystal instead of the company itself. Go D. Usopp (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. Go D. Usopp (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Mirror (video game)

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

The only significant coverage from a reliable source I can find about this game is a single review here. It doesn't seem to pass the bar of WP:GNG. Little Goody Two Shoes (video game) might be an WP:ATD given that the game is a prequel to this one, it would make sense to incorporate something about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for reviewing my article and explaining everything clearly. I understand now that I should have improved it more before publishing. I really appreciate your feedback, and I’ll move it to my draft space to work on sourcing and rewriting it properly. Thanks again for your time and for helping me understand the process better. MeldyRose (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please don't move articles when an AfD is in progress. As the banner says, do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed. You'd have to actually ask me to withdraw my nomination first.

If you had asked me though, it's unlikely I would have because I believe this is a WP:AKON situation. I don't believe this article would be notable in any incarnation so redirection or deletion are the only potential options for it in my view. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veer Bhai Kotwal

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

This article have no source from long time. Ishwarsinh Kotwal (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Biology, India, and Maharashtra. Ishwarsinh Kotwal (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Scattered mentions in Gbooks, but not enough for notability. Probably more in the native language. As it is, not enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep. @Oaktree b: Did you search without the honorific title "Veer"? He's most commonly known as "Bhai Kotwal" without the Veer or Vir (which is a Hindi title given to honor heroes). If you search for that there are tons of hits in google books with snippet views of promise. Note that there are buildings and schools, a road, etc. named after him in India. There was also a 2020 film about his life. He's clearly a well known figure. I might suggest removing the Veer from the title because it literally means/denotes "hero".4meter4 (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try a search without Veer, thanks for the info. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To be honest, not much more comes up [2] has about a paragraph mentioning him. The entire Gscholar search [3] is about a dozen items... I don't see substantial coverage. I would assume most sources aren't in English, but that's about all I can search for. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no doubt that the guy is notable, but the article isn't sourced, and I don't find much of anything... It's still a !delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Revolutionary movement for Indian independence#Kotwal Dasta – Where he is mentionted. Svartner (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- Have to agree with lack of SIGCOV sources from casual online searching, though I suspect could just be language barrier, like more sources in the subjects native language, the alternative wiki of this sane page, does have additional citations in at least one of them, also found this online with the subject being commemorated with a stamp in the image of him.Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator appears to have been blocked as a sockpuppet. Zalaraz (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Band

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

Non notable defunct bus company Sugar Tax (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AMK Group

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable bus company Sugar Tax (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terravision (Italian company)

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

Non notable bus company Sugar Tax (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free b

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Bus of North Lanarkshire

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable bus company Sugar Tax (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep copy/paste nomination that does not discuss why the cited sources are not valid --Garuda3 (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. asilvering (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mubashir Hanif

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

Not yet notable per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. No secondary coverage found in WP:Reliable sources, using romanized spelling or Urdu (مبشر حنیف). Declined at draft, as was his company TechMatter, so there's no prospect of a redirect per WP:ATD. Borderline speedy db-bio. Wikishovel (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, Software, and Pakistan. Wikishovel (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, a before finds only primary sources and press releases, fails WP:GNG. Also looks like undisclosed paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, can't find any sign of notability. MCE89 (talk) 10:31, 4 November 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.

Aaron's of Wick

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

Non notable bus company Sugar Tax (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

X1 Glasgow–Hamilton

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:GNG, as there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" already in the article, in just about every single source. Katzrockso (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M4 Anniesland–Partick

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:GNG, as there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" already in the article, in just about every single source.

Katzrockso (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M3 Milton–City Centre

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:GNG, as there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" already in the article, in multiple sources.

Katzrockso (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Bus Airport Express

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buchan Express

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

747 Aberdeen Airport–Peterhead

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also find the nomination surprising given the references included. I can see an argument along the lines of "most bus routes are not notable so we shouldn't include just a few odd ones" but inherent non-notability has never seemed to gain traction nor has it got into our P&Gs. Thincat (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

500 Glasgow Airport Express

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

478 Dunoon–Portavadie

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, but I could very easily be persuaded to keep on the condition the notability is expanded, as I believe this article does have potential. The final two sentences of the first paragraph detail what makes this bus route unique – I'd like to see more of that, as the rest of the article appears to be WP:CRUFTy information on times and the route taken, rather than why it's significant. — Czello ^(music) 10:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep copy/paste nomination that does not discuss why the sources cited are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the validity of the sources; it's about notability not being established. — Czello ^(music) 14:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator should have explained why they feel the sources are not sufficient for establishing notability. Garuda3 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

101/102 Edinburgh–Dumfries

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

38 Glasgow–Johnstone

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23 Stirling–St Andrews

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in reliable sources, not limited to the local area. As St Andrews has a major university and no rail connection, other forms of public transport are important there and do tend to get coverage in the Scottish press. Adam Sampson (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20 Ratho–Chesser

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D1 Denby Darts

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welland Wanderer

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

W8 Wellingborough–Bozeat

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T7 Bristol–Chepstow

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T1 Bristol–Thornbury

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple sources cited, copy/paste nomination that doesn't discuss why these sources are not valid.--Garuda3 (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Severn Express

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hertfordshire bus routes 614 and 644

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

City Clipper

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many copy/paste nominations, no explanation of why it isn't notable. Multiple sources cited in article. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No longer in operation. Only existed for 6 months before being discontinued permanently. — Maile (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beachcomber (bus)

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage cited is all strictly local, trivial, and/or promotional. Fails WP:GNG. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

575 Harlow–Romford

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

280 Preston–Skipton

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

216 Cardiff–Bristol Airport

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

178 Bristol–Radstock

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

159 Coalville–Hinckley

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

141 Nottingham–Sutton-in-Ashfield

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

126 Wells - Axbridge

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

62 Lichfield–Cannock

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

59 Skipton–Harrogate

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

47 Bristol–Yate

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' several articles cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

32 Gloucester–Ross-on-Wye

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

Non notable bus route. Sugar Tax (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Has coverage in several different sources, although most are local and about the proposed service cut. I think it just edges over WP:GNG but would be more comfortable saying that if there were more sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' several articles cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jackery

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

Redirect to Jacquerie contested, so here we are. Non-notable US power company, undersourced to primary sources, Forbes Sites, LinkedIn and the usual low level corporate desperation sources. Fails WP:GNG and NCORP. Would accept redirect per consensus but note it's not a perfect target so, failing that, deletion would be appropriate. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marjuca or Death

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

Unreferenced article. I was unable to locate WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I do see some references on Croatian about this film and the transalating them it looks legit. Mag2k (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? Provide them here please so we can all evaluate.4meter4 (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added some; more exist but access is not really easy. I too would think it is a keep. Notable cast and director, released, rather significant coverage in reliable sources; a redirect to a list might be possible but does not seem necessary; deletion would be a poor idea. e.ux 09:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aloa: Festivity of the Whores

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

Cited only to a film database compiled by the Croatian Film Association, an amateur group. Could not locate WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: see page; WP:NFO is met through the Golden Arena for Best Actress received by the lead actress for her role ('The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking'). Added a few things. Can certainly be improved. e.ux 10:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Croatia and Serbia. e.ux 10:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: There are some references on Croation, which can support the notability. Mag2k (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide details please? Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see them in the list of references for the article. Mag2k (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got you. I hadn't seen the addition of sources at the time I made my comment. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Glynn

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

American actress and extra. Minor roles throughout, no SIGCOV, no major roles, no awards, fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR - we have no "significant roles in multiple notable films, notable television shows, stage performances, or other notable productions", in short... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Halloween_(franchise)_characters#S: she is the only actress mentioned there for her character; her most significant role; per WP:ATD-R, a section of the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, that states: " page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate." e.ux 09:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Varanasi gang rape

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

For an event to be presumed notable on Wikipedia, it must demonstrate lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. Indeed, going further, and we get most crimes[...] – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. This is a fairly high bar, and not one this article topic appears to pass.

Created in the week after the event was reported, but it wasn't even posted at ITN because, unfortunately, gang rapes are much too common in India and nobody could see any WP:LASTING impact.[4] Several months later, that remains true. There's been a handful of news article doubting the 19 year old's story, evidence that at least one claim may be false (which is why we don't write sensitive articles with breaking news stories), an announcement that the police stopped arresting people after new evidence emerged, and a few news stories when the SIT report was released, saying only that it couldn't rule out that a crime had occurred [5][6][7], but that's it. - Admittedly, my WP:BEFORE was hampered by the fact that that there were several gang rapes in Varanasi this year and last, (Wikipedia:ROTM) and the 2024 case kept coming up instead of the 2025 case, but I'm still not seeing sufficient, continued coverage. While Modi and a few other public figures made statements (or campaign promises) at the time, there were no mass protests, no actual change effected, and, as such, no more sources to work with. The article also has many BLP issues - the first revision was the worst, but it still presents many claims as facts in wikivoice ("[X Name][...]later threatened to circulate the footage as revenge porn."..."he raped her before leaving her in the Nadesar area"... "man identified as [Y NAME], who took her to his residence in the Hukulganj area" - some of these are taken directly from quotes attributed to the mother, and the newspapers do not state them in their own voice. I shouldn't need to explain to anybody what that's problematic.

TL:DR; Could this be notable in the future? Yes, absolutely. Is it now? The sources don't indicate so, and we are, by design, a lagging indicator of notability. If we were to have an article on this subject, it should be based on high quality, non-breaking news stories. It should be balanced, respectful of the living people whose lives were impacted by the event, and not be based on two weeks worth of breaking news coverage. I'm willing to push NEVENT a bit for events that are very likely to be notable, such as airline crashes or natural disasters, but not crimes. Let the world write the sources first, and we'll follow. Against ATDs for BLP reasons. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 23:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and India. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 23:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Orientls (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability at this moment seems highly unlikely. Agletarang (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. — EarthDude (Talk) 12:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and a complete dearth of WP:PERSISTENT or SIGCOV in reliable sources makes it impossible to support a standalone article, particularly considering the BLP implications. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The news has gotten significant coverage in the Indian press including India Today, the Hindustan Times, and the Times of India/. In addition the incident has prompted an official response from Modi. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:BREAKING and WP:NOTNEWS. Zalaraz (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see WP:SIGCOV as this been nationally reported across the country of 1.4 Billion. it clearly meets the WP:GNG through significant, in-depth national coverage from numerous reliable sources like The Hindu, The Hindustan Times, and The Indian Express. It also satisfies WP:LASTING with sustained follow-up reporting on its real-world consequences, including the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), the transfer of a senior IPS officer, and the PMO seeking a report on the case.Longewal (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. This is a routine crime news, especially in a country like India. Some government moves are not indication of notability. Zalaraz (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand where you're coming from, the fact that there was an investigation is expected, not a reason for notability and internal personal changes is not a LASTING impact. For that, we'd be looking for something like what happened in the Nirbhaya case: mass protests sweeping the country, serious calls for change, going to the Supreme Court- and we've got sources discussing all that. And I'm not saying those sources will never exist for this one - somebody could wake up tomorrow and start writing a book on it. But we only write articles once we've got sources, the sources just aren't there yet. And that's resulted in serious BLP issues, that could potentially negatively impact all the parties, especially the teenage girl. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 03:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per BLP issues and WP:NOTNEWS. Zalaraz (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the article's original creator but others have contributed significantly to it. There are two issues here. One is compliance with WP:BLPCRIME with regard to names of involved people, and the other is WP:GNG of the overall event. I think the major complaint here is BLPCRIME, and I propose 1) WP:TNT to restart the article but omit all names while 2) confirming that this overall event passes GNG, and that a remake without names is welcome. The event happened in April 2025 and the last major update was the special investigation report in July. Modi the Prime Minister commented on it, which is unusual for any such case, and also this case has been in many newspapers over months. I count 3 major gang sexual assault incidents in the media, in this town, since this incident, so doing Internet search to sort the cases is a bit confusing. The two most unusual sources are the Prime Minister's statement and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) report which says, "Can’t be denied that the accused committed the crime". There are other unusual media items, including the primary source police interview which secondary sources report, and various articles which share the perspective of the accused.

@GreenLipstickLesbian: You mentioned risk to the victim, whom I think is not named in any of the identified articles. Do you see a risk to the victim for this article existing if 1) she is not named and 2) the accused are not named? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you pinged: GNG is not relevant: as an event article, NEVENT applies. An SIT report is, in fact, a good thing that a government should produce - and none of the coverage on it is anything but routine.

To answer your question, though - I think there's a risk to every party if we built sensitive articles on breaking news headlines, present unclear facts as though they are definitive, names included or otherwise. Why are you so opposed to recreating this in, say, three to five years, when the better sourcing emerges? GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 16:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do agree with TNT though. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 17:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". The GNG is always relevant. Katzrockso (talk) 06:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNG are always preferred when determining notability, should they exist for a topic. Zalaraz (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, since per WP:N very explicitly states a topic is notable if it meets either the WP:GNG or a particular WP:SNG. Katzrockso (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it says that it's presumed notable. You can overcome that presumption; for example, if the sources are weak enough that you can't build an article adhering to core PAGs. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 23:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but relates to the fact that notability doesn't guarantee an article if an article fails other Wikipedia policies like WP:NOT, not whether or not the topic is actually notable. This is also a new argument not presented in the nomination (which focuses on claims of notability I believe were adequately addressed) and not one that I think can be successful. Do you really think the "sources are weak enough" here that it isn't possible to build an article adhering to PAGs? I have a hard time believing that. Katzrockso (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is not a new thing to see SIT getting formed after the crime has attracted some media attention, but that cannot be used for establishing notability. The subject fails WP:N and has failed to attract lasting coverage. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bluerasberry and the WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS states that "For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage". There coverage is neither routine nor does it fall into the listed examples of routine coverage. WP:ROUTINE similarly provides no rationale for why the coverage here should be excluded. Katzrockso (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the topic meets notability or not is inconsequential compared to the BLP concern affecting all parties involved. Keeping such an article only re-victimizes the victim and portrays the accused as a criminal without a real-life conviction, which violates WP:BLPCRIME. WP:NITROGLYCERIN is the way forward here. Zalaraz (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems that could be fixed by editing. WP:Deletion is not cleanup, the job of AfD is not to delete articles that have problems satisfying content guidelines, but whether the topic is notable enough to warrant a different article in any shape or form. One way to resolve your concerns about WP:BLPCRIME is just to remove all the content that violates it, not by deleting the article. WP:TNT is an essay, not a deletion rationale based in policy. Katzrockso (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to let this be my last comment here: I actually looked into fixing this, before nominating (or at least, sketching out a way this could be fixed) However, I feel that the only way the BLP issues could be surmountable is with better quality sources, further removed from the event. We don't have those yet. Removing the content that runs afoul of BLP crime is deleting the article. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 06:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another new argument not presented in the nomination nor one that I believe can be substantiated - the BLP issues pointed to in the nomination are WP:SURMOUNTABLE (referring to the contrast in voice between sources and the text of the article), but now you claim that all of the content that runs afoul of BLP crime is just about the entire article. This is a radical change in position and not one that is substantiated by a provided analysis of the article - I fail to understand how better quality sources would make a difference her with respect to the BLP crime accusation. Katzrockso (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't changed my argument, Katzrockso - I highlighted a different set of examples about how the reporting was a bit dubious with the note which is why we don't write sensitive articles with breaking news stories). I'm sorry if that didn't come across as clear enough. If you believe the BLP problems are surmountable, then fix them. I can't see how you get over the uncertainty and the fact that there's been no lasting coverage, no impact, no decent analysis by secondary sources. If you want me to withdraw, then provide those sources. Without them, we end up with articles like Prospect Park alleged police sodomy incident and Long family murder–suicide, aka sensationalist articles that never should have been written, one of which was kept around nearly two decades longer than it should have been. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 10:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If BLP issues are to be fixed then the article will have to go, as it concerns non public figures and crime. Zalaraz (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:EVENTCRIT. It's WP:TOOSOON for WP:LASTING to be established as the event happened this year, and the coverage in WP:ROUTINE news cycle coverage which because they qualitative in scope are WP:PRIMARY sources and not WP:SECONDARY reporting. This type of coverage fails WP:NOTNEWS. We need WP:DIVERSE sourcing and sourcing which extends beyond normal media coverage of crimes.13:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, not news.Llwyld (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus and think that this is a discussion that probably shouldn't close as "No consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pushing this towards keep versus no consensus as the event at least passes WP:GNG. This is not a routine event based on 23 individuals and the SIGCOV that it garnered. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage exists on plenty of sites to meet WP:BASIC. Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Mysecretgarden, I'm a little confused by this !vote, as WP:BASIC explicitly only refers to people. Could you clarify? GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 23:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[ GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 23:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even after 2 weeks of the AfD, the subject still fails WP:NOTNEWS. Segaton (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Does not meet the criteria at WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:DIVERSE, or WP:LASTING. 4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No one's been convicted, so it's all up in the air at this point. I see nothing wrong with recreation after any criminal trial. As it is now, this is simply a news item. It does not meet criminal notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radio News Hub

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

WP:BEFORE reveals only primary sources. Fails WP:NCORP. SpragueThomson^talk 20:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. SpragueThomson^talk 20:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fairly large news provider and would pass WP:GNG. Sources are reported by a journal rather than by the company itself. This is Paul (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost every single source is from Radio Today, which counts as combined 1 source. I am also not sure if that is a primary source. The article on Prolific London might have worked but I am getting 404 error on it.Darkm777 (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prolific London now has an archived url. This is Paul (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any solid secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: for the same reasons as stated by This is Paul. Rillington (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sourcing isn't there. The prolificlondon.co.uk is only one source, and we need multiple sources. I am essentially making an WP:IAR argument here. Given that hundreds of radio stations in the UK use their services its a significant media outlet. I fail to see the benefit to the public not covering this topic. That said... I don't think anyone can honestly claim a WP:GNG or WP:ORG pass. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian Humanities Studies

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

Article PRODded with reason: "Non-notable journal. Not in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator without reason given and without any changes to the article addressing the issues raised. Therefore, PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and China. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This journal is indexed in three major SELECTIVE academic journal databases: CNKI,^[1] Wanfang Data, and CQVIP.^[2] It is included in National Center for Philosophy and Social Sciences Documentation as well (see ^[3]) although I am not sure how selective NCPSSD is.

It is also included in AMI (set to replace CSSCI, the Chinese equivalent to SSCI/AHCI), see ^[1]. A brief introduction to AMI (the following text translated from AMI源刊-学术参考信息网 (Shandong University):

Introduction: AMI, the Comprehensive Evaluation Index System for Chinese Humanities and Social Sciences Journals, is the first large-scale evaluation project undertaken by the China Social Sciences Evaluation Center (the predecessor of the China Social Sciences Evaluation Institute).

Since 2014, the China Social Sciences Evaluation Institute (hereinafter referred to as the Evaluation Institute) has conducted journal evaluations every four years. The 2022 release of the "AMI Comprehensive Evaluation Report on Chinese Humanities and Social Sciences Journals (2022)" (third edition) evaluated 1,924 established journals, 117 newly established journals, 148 foreign journals, and 403 academic collections across 33 disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. The evaluations were divided into five levels: top, authoritative, core, expanded, and in-repository, based on the journals' academic level, comprehensive evaluation score, and actual performance. LSNAWQ (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b "欧亚人文研究(中俄文)". chn.oversea.cnki.net. Retrieved 2025-10-20.
^ "《欧亚人文研究（中俄文）》". CQVIP.
^ "国家哲学社会科学文献中心". www.ncpssd.cn. Retrieved 2025-10-20.

I'm sorry, but as far as I can see, none of these databases is selective as meant in WP:NJournals. What you write about the "Comprehensive Evaluation" actually is a strong indication of not being selective. --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you do not trust me, nor do you read Chinese, I could only hope and hereby encourage Chinese-language academics who pass by to tell the very simple and indisputable fact that AMI is selective. LSNAWQ (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a journal of Eurasian studies but nothing regarding Eurasian Humanities Studies no seciondary sources and no articles. Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try search 欧亚人文研究 or Eвразийские гуманитарные исследования. The journal is about 90% Chinese, 10% Russian. LSNAWQ (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my searches for sources, I found only this independent source:
1. Wu, Jie 伍杰; Zhao, Hankun 赵含坤 (2000). 中文期刊大词典 [Chinese Periodical Dictionary] (in Chinese). Beijing: Peking University Press. p. 276. ISBN 978-7-301-03349-4. Retrieved 2025-10-24 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "俄语学习北京外国语大学编 1959,00, 1 — 1966.00. 5 2 6 107—189|1985,00, ^^^^^^)—^! 1 一双月刊北京商务印书馆出版原名为《中华俄语)外语学习普及型刊物.以广大自学者大中学俄语教师为主要对象,把向读者提供阅读材料和分析俄语语文现象结合起来,以普及为主,兼及提高,适当介绍苏联国情知识, 料、知识之窗、科技俄语、综合性社科刊物.旨在"提倡社会文化,发扬学术精神,主要栏目有初学园地、读物、语法、同汇、修辞.翻译、会话材多铎朵俄"
  From Google Translate: "Russian Learning, edited by Beijing Foreign Studies University, October 1, 1959 — October 5, 1966, May 26, 1985, ^^^^^^)—^! 1, a bimonthly publication published by the Commercial Press in Beijing. Originally titled "Chinese Russian," it is a popular foreign language learning journal. Aimed primarily at self-learners and Russian teachers at universities and middle schools, it combines the provision of reading materials with analysis of Russian language phenomena, focusing on popularization while also improving understanding. Appropriate introductions to knowledge of the Soviet Union are included, including Materials, a Window of Knowledge, and Scientific Russian. A comprehensive social science journal, it aims to "promote social culture and foster the academic spirit." Its main columns include "Beginner's Garden," "Readings," "Grammar," "Dictionary," "Rhetoric," "Translation," and "Conversational Materials.""
If a second independent reliable source that provides significant coverage about the subject can be found, this journal will meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
If a second source cannot be found, I recommend a ~~merge/redirect to Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press~~, the journal's publisher, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
By the way, thank you LSNAWQ (talk · contribs) for creating Wanfang Data and CQVIP, which I've used many times in the past for cite Chinese-language journal articles. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be concise.

First, does this journal meet the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (GENERAL journal)? Yes.

For instance: 中国发行量最大的俄语教学期刊迎来创刊45周年-搜狐新闻中心

中国发行量最大的俄语教学期刊迎来创刊45周年

NEWS.SOHU.COM　　2004年10月13日15:59　　来源：新华网

　　新华网北京10月13日电（记者葛万青张言王作葵）中俄建交55周年到来之际，一本在中国发行量最大的俄语教学期刊—《俄语学习》也迎来了它的45周岁生日。

　　《俄语学习》创刊于中国普遍掀起学习俄语高潮的五十年代。这本由北京外国语大学主办的教学期刊成为中国广大俄语爱好者了解俄罗斯语言、文学、历史、文化、国情知识和时事的一个窗

口。

　　《俄语学习》主编尹城说：“我们的读者群非常广泛——不仅有学生和教师，还包括外交官、商贸人员、科技人员和广大俄语自学者。”

　　北京外国语大学俄语学院毕业生曹定说，《俄语学习》伴他走过了4年大学生活，刊物文章语言活泼、易懂，对提高俄语阅读能力很有好处。“从这本杂志中我还了解到很多俄罗斯风俗民情。”他说。

　　近半个世纪来，《俄语学习》的发展就像一支“晴雨表”，从一个侧面反映了中国俄语教学事业的“兴”与“衰”。

　　《俄语学习》在1966年“文化大革命”时曾被迫停刊，直到1985年复刊。之后近20年中，刊物几经扩版，发行量由初期的6000份增加到8000份。

　　商务印书馆外语工具书编辑室副主任、《俄语学习》的老读者潘安荣说：“没想到《俄语学习》有这么强的生命力，当年仅有寥寥数页的小册子如今已办得有模有样！”

　　中国俄语教学研究会的最新统计资料显示，在被调查的55所中国高等院校中，共有在校俄语专业本科生5467人，硕士487人，博士88人，博士后13人。他们是《俄语学习》最主要的读者群。

　　中国俄语教学研究会会长刘利民教授说：“四十多年来，《俄语学习》在推广俄语教学、培养俄语人才方面发挥了积极的作用，伴随了中国几代俄语爱好者的成长。”

　　为满足读者对俄罗斯文化日益浓厚的兴趣，《俄语学习》近期还将新增“俄罗斯历史与文化”、“俄罗斯文艺”、“俄罗斯文学”三个栏目。“我们要努力提高刊物的档次和质量，以不断满足读者的需求。”尹城说。

ChatGPT translation:

China’s Most Widely Circulated Russian Language Teaching Journal Marks Its 45th Anniversary

NEWS.SOHU.COM, October 13, 2004 — Source: Xinhua News Agency

BEIJING, October 13 (Reporters: Ge Wanqing, Zhang Yan, Wang Zuokui) — As China and Russia celebrate the 55th anniversary of their diplomatic relations, Russian Language Learning (《俄语学习》), the most widely circulated Russian language teaching journal in China, is also marking its 45th anniversary.

Russian Language Learning was founded in the 1950s, during a nationwide enthusiasm for studying Russian. Published by Beijing Foreign Studies University, the journal has become a window for countless Chinese readers to learn about Russian language, literature, history, culture, national affairs, and current events.

“Our readership is very broad,” said Yin Cheng, editor-in-chief of Russian Language Learning. “It includes not only students and teachers, but also diplomats, businesspeople, scientists, and self-learners of Russian.”

Cao Ding, a graduate of the Russian Department at Beijing Foreign Studies University, said that Russian Language Learning accompanied him through his four years of college. “The articles are lively and easy to understand, which really helped improve my reading ability,” he said. “I also learned a lot about Russian customs and social life from the magazine.”

Over the past half-century, the development of Russian Language Learning has served as a kind of “barometer,” reflecting the ups and downs of Russian language education in China.

The journal was forced to suspend publication in 1966 during the Cultural Revolution and did not resume until 1985. In the nearly two decades since its revival, it has expanded several times, with circulation increasing from 6,000 copies in its early years to about 8,000.

Pan Anrong, deputy director of the Foreign Language Reference Books Editorial Office at The Commercial Press and a longtime reader of Russian Language Learning, remarked: “I never expected the magazine to have such vitality. It started as just a few pages, but now it’s a well-produced publication!”

According to the latest statistics from the Chinese Association for Russian Language Teaching, among 55 surveyed Chinese universities, there are currently 5,467 undergraduate students majoring in Russian, 487 master’s students, 88 doctoral students, and 13 postdoctoral researchers. They make up the journal’s primary readership.

Professor Liu Limin, president of the Chinese Association for Russian Language Teaching, said: “Over more than forty years, Russian Language Learning has played a positive role in promoting Russian language education and training talent, accompanying several generations of Chinese learners.”

To meet readers’ growing interest in Russian culture, Russian Language Learning plans to add three new columns: “Russian History and Culture,” “Russian Arts,” and “Russian Literature.” “We are striving to enhance the quality and standard of the publication to better meet our readers’ needs,” Yin Cheng said.

Second, does the journal meet WP:NJournals (ACADEMIC journal)? Yes.

I have created an article for AMI Comprehensive Evaluation Report. There is a research article about AMI: A comprehensive analysis of the journal evaluation system in China | Quantitative Science Studies | MIT Press. AMI is now considered one of three major citation indices, alongside CSSCI and A Guide to the Core Journals of China. LSNAWQ (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding Ge, Yan & Wang 2004, which is the crucial second source that allows Eurasian Humanities Studies to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I've switched to supporting retention below. LSNAWQ (talk · contribs), thank you again for your great work in creating articles on Chinese journals and databases as this is an area that deeply underrepresented on Wikipedia! As long as there are two independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about a subject, it will meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wu & Zhao 2000, which I've quoted above.
2. Ge, Wangqing 葛万; Zhang, Yan 青张; Wang, Zuokui 王作葵 (2004-10-13). "中国发行量最大的俄语教学期刊迎来创刊45周年" [China's Most Widely Circulated Russian Language Teaching Journal Marks Its 45th Anniversary] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2025-10-27. Retrieved 2025-10-27 – via Sohu.
  LSNAWQ quoted and translated this above.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Eurasian Humanities Studies (simplified Chinese: 欧亚人文研究; traditional Chinese: 歐亞人文研究; pinyin: Ōuyǎ Rénwén Yánjiū, previously known as Russian Language (simplified Chinese: 俄语学习; traditional Chinese: 俄語學習; pinyin: Èyǔ Xuéxí), to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acumen (magazine)

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

I am struggling to find references of quality for this literary journal. I cannot see how it passes WP:GNG 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and United Kingdom. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added WP:SIGCOV in multiple book sources and journals to the article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the original sources that aren't dead links, plus the newly added ones are very brief passing mentions, often in directories. Not sure this comes under WP:NJOURNAL as it's not an academic, peer reviewed journal but it doesn't meet WP:GNG. It doesn't seem to pay contributors so seems to be a publication of amateur poetry which may explain why WP:BEFORE came up with so little. Orange sticker (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is an accurate representation of the materials. I noticed you removed an assessment of the publication under a POV claim even though it came from a book published by McGraw Hill, a respected academic press. I attributed the quote to its author (which seemed unnecessary since it was cited), but that should assuage POV concerns. There are clear indications this is notable literary journal because of the content of what is said in the sources. Not everything is about length of words, but about what is said. 4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PUFFERY, "leading" is in the list of words to watch. Orange sticker (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. This was in a list of "leading poetry journals" compiled in a book by a respected author from an academic publisher who is a subject matter expert. Claims of importance matter when they come from reliable SECONDARY sources.4meter4 (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. The sources found by 4meter4.
2. "Acumen article". The Poetry Review. Vol. 83. 1993. Retrieved 2025-10-28 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "Acumen It would be tempting though not quite fair to say that Acumen now occupies the territory once held by the unreconstructed Outposts: there's the same emphasis on single poems, often by unfamiliar authors ... ... could stand as characteristic Acumen titles. There's a danger of complacency in this, but Patricia Oxley guards against it by attracting excellent established poets (Brownjohn, Ewart, Porter, the indefatigable Heath-Stubbs) and by finding some unusually confident newer voices. Where some editors' open doors let in the dust from the streets, hers admits the bracing fresh air of writers who convincingly reinvent the familiar: David Sutton, in 'Heatwave' ('The world's less real on summer afternoons. / We walk in dazzle, wan as daylit ghosts'); Adam Johnson, whose autumnal 'End of Season' ('lt pulls again, a green wave at my heels, / Furling the summer cinder... ') moves from simple regret to the terror of 'Profound incontrovertible disease'. Acumen shares with Outposts the problem of critical sharpness in its prose: some of its reviews, particularly of those perennial poets well-known ..."
3. Jerome, Helen M. (May 2000). "The U.K. Literary Journal Market". Poets and Writers Magazine. Vol. 28, no. 3. p. 58. ProQuest 1311717092.
  The article notes: "Acumen is a beautifully produced, paper-back-format literary magazine founded in 1985. Editor Patricia Oxley states that her aim is "to publish good poetry in a critical context." The journal thus publishes articles on poetry, poetic reminiscences, reviews as well as poetry. Each issue of Acumen publishes up to 50 new poems and includes a separate, pull-out poster featuring the work of one writer. Acumen will publish experimental poetry if it's not too obscure, as well as narrative."
4. "Literary Ladies". Torquay Herald Express. 1986-11-27. Archived from the original on 2025-10-28. Retrieved 2025-10-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "A literary magazine edited and published by a South Devon woman arrived on my desk recently. Issue No 4, out last month, was the first l had heard of Acumen, the pages of which are packed with poems, interviews and reviews. The editor, Patricia Oxley, of Brixham, says her aim was to publish good poetry from known and unknown writers, male or female. Yet she found an increasing number of manuscripts coming in were from women. Not only this, many of her subscribers were women. ... Because of this, Patricia is now welcoming feedback and inquiries from writers' circles, womens' groups and so on — with copies of Acumen at £1.50, a reduction of 25p. The magazine was launched last year."
5. "Agenda article". Agenda. Poets' and Painters' Press. 1992. Retrieved 2025-10-28 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "In its constant search for the good poem Acumen has published work by Sebastian Barker, Julie Whitby, Julian May, Penelope Shuttle, John Heath-Stubbs, Hilary Davies, Heather Buck, Peter Dale, Edward Lowbury, Adam Johnson and a galaxy of other poets. A comprehensive and well-written reviews section, initiated by William Oxley and now edited by Glyn Pursglove, plus short stories, critical articles and a new feature 'Overheard on Parnassus' make up this magazine of over 100pp. Only £ 3.00 per issue or £5.50 subscription (2 issues a year: April and October) Patricia Oxley, Acumen Publications"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Acumen to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the sources listed above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Doom

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

Fails WP:NENTERTAINER, has so far been a participant in a single reality TV franchise, no WP:SIGCOV outside of that. WP:PSEUDO also applies. In the same way that we do not have articles for every participant on other reality shows (Big Brother for example), appearing on this show does not automatically assume notability. --wooden superman 12:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 12:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Entertainer. There's a longstanding standard that individuals who have competed on two TV series (even within the same franchise) meet notability criteria. There's no reason to move the goalposts here. Article should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a spin-off season of the same franchise, which clearly does not meet the criteria in WP:NENTERTAINER for "multiple notable television shows". --wooden superman 13:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Entertainer, for the same reasons Another Believer stated. Cornmazes (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Entertainer, for the same reasons Another Believer stated.Naraht (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Merely being on a reality show(s) does not indicate an automatic pass of WP:NENTERTAINER. The subject has to demonstrate that their contribution to the show was significant per that language in the SNG guideline. The sourcing here doesn't demonstrate that what Doom did on these reality shows was in fact "significant". Draglicious is an unreliable blog, and routine cast introductions don't indicate notability under this SNG. The Thai magazine article is good, but we need multiple pieces of evidence of this calibre to demonstrate significance. A redirect to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula is possible as an WP:ATD. 4meter4 (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies, Alaska, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - (1) he came in third place; (2) two reliable sources and several unreliable citations are not enough coverage for a BLP. Ping me if you find and add a better source. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article about the series, I don't see notability otherwise. Appears to have been a minor character on both series, with nothing outside of that to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Doll

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

Fails WP:NENTERTAINER, has so far been a participant in a single reality TV franchise, no WP:SIGCOV outside of that. WP:PSEUDO also applies. In the same way that we do not have articles for every participant on other reality shows (Big Brother for example), appearing on this show does not automatically assume notability. --wooden superman 12:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 12:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Entertainer. There's a longstanding standard that individuals who have competed on two TV series (even within the same franchise) meet notability criteria. There's no reason to move the goalposts here. Article should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a spin-off season of the same franchise, which clearly does not meet the criteria in WP:NENTERTAINER for "multiple notable television shows". --wooden superman 13:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Entertainer, for the same reasons Another Believer stated. Cornmazes (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Entertainer, for the same reasons Another Believer stated.Naraht (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Merely being on a reality show(s) does not indicate an automatic pass of WP:NENTERTAINER. The subject has to demonstrate that their contribution to the show was significant per that language in the SNG guideline. The sourcing here doesn't demonstrate that what Cynthia Doll did on these reality shows was in fact "significant". A redirect to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula is a plausible WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, LGBTQ+ studies, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one reliable source and another possibly unreliable citation are not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you find and add two more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A lack of WP:SIGCOV to establish notability here. I also don't see how WP:ENTERTAINER is met, which states multiple [...] notable television shows are required. They've only appeared on one television show, albeit multiple times (across two seasons). Nil🥝 04:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhora

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

Fails WP:NENTERTAINER, has so far been a participant in a single reality TV franchise, no WP:SIGCOV outside of that. WP:PSEUDO also applies. In the same way that we do not have articles for every participant on other reality shows (Big Brother for example), appearing on this show does not automatically assume notability. --wooden superman 12:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 12:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Entertainer. There's a longstanding standard that individuals who have competed on two TV series (even within the same franchise) meet notability criteria. There's no reason to move the goalposts here. Article should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a spin-off season of the same franchise, which clearly does not meet the criteria in WP:NENTERTAINER for "multiple notable television shows". --wooden superman 13:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Entertainer, for the same reasons Another Believer stated. Cornmazes (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Entertainer, for the same reasons Another Believer stated.Naraht (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Merely being on a reality show(s) does not indicate an automatic pass of WP:NENTERTAINER. The subject has to demonstrate that their contribution to the show was significant per that language in the SNG guideline. The sourcing here doesn't demonstrate that what Abhora did on these reality shows was in fact "significant". Further one of the sources used is unreliable because it is a live podcast which is a WP:PRIMARY source.4meter4 (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But did you search for sources not used in the article? Sources aren't difficult to find. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing looks good in that list. Seeing a bunch of trivial WP:FANCRUFT/WP:TABLOID type reporting. Trivial current event coverage of this type is not significant, and it is WP:PRIMARY because it's qualitative eyewitness/interview reporting. We need sources with analysis and context across time for the sources to become WP:SECONDARY in order to demonstrate significance.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're not going to agree here, which is fine, but are you open to changing your vote from delete to redirect? There's no need to delete the page and its history altogether because at minimum the redirect serves a purpose to readers. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Sure a redirect to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula as an WP:ATD is fine. On a side note, if Abhora's work were significant on this show(s) you would expect articles with cross-episode and cross-season analysis (how they grew as an artist; themes in their work etc.) So much gets written on drag these days that type of coverage should exist if a particular contestant is significant. That's the type of coverage that would indicate an WP:NENTERTAINER pass. Churnalism, which is what we have here, isn't evidence of notability. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm sure there's more to add, I'll keep fleshing out the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you want me to take a second look. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but instead, I would ask you to please consider changing your other delete votes for similar bios to redirect for the same reason and for consistency. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies, California, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see at least three reliable sources, although much of this BLP is sourced from blogs. It could use copy editing. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per @4meter4. There is no significant coverage from any reliable source. The subject does not satisfy either criteria of WP:NENTERTAINER. Jcgaylor (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

California University of Science and Medicine

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

The article does not have reliable sources that can help confirm notability. There is no media coverage on Google search. It does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. Nothing beyond their own press releases. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Science, Medicine, United States of America, and California. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 04:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of WP:SIGCOV SnowyRiver28 (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless there is something wrong with the San Bernardino Sun as a newspaper that I am unaware of, there is reliable sourcing available that is already in the WP article + more. Whole articles are devoted to the school. Would have said speedy keep if there weren't a second vote already. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you. San Bernardino Sun piece based on own press release of the institution about the number of students by no means can be used to satisfy the WP:SIGCOV. Institution's own website is also not a source. I do not see any other sources on Google search. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are not many MD schools in the US. Being even provisionally accredited by the LCME is difficult and very expensive. All of the schools with this status are found in press sometimes as in the article but also keep in mind more technical publishers E.g. Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03414-1 2600:4041:2E8:AE00:5135:87E5:AB6B:FA6F (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true, I am afraid. There are over 160 accredited MD-granting medical schools in the United States, and even more with other programs. Simply existing does not equal notability. https://www.2minutemedicine.com/counting-u-s-medical-schools-md-and-do-programs-in-2025/

This particular institution, again, has no reliable independent coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. It rather appears to be a shell entity of one of the biggest Medicaid fraud cases in the state, which I find quite unexpected - Prem Reddy. I take the name of this institution and Google it, and it shows nothing. While there are no issues with looking up media coverage of actually notable institutions. Feel free to add sources, and editors would evaluate. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not even included in any of the established and reputable educational rankings in the US, which virtually includes almost all existing medical schools in the country. If it is so notable, and has such a status, why nobody wants to acknowledge it? https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-medical-schools/california-university-of-science-and-medicine-04186 WestwoodHights573 (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I removed some of the unsourced PR stuff, and added a number of newspaper articles. It has some coverage from outside the area. I think there is enough here to pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @4meter4! I did not actually heck the sources you added. None of the sources seem to exist. Why is that so and where did you find them?

Source 1 that you added, describing as an article is virtually a press release. De La Cruz, Rene Ray. "Helping Students Pursue Their Dreams: Dr. Prem Reddy Family Foundation Awards 84 Students With Scholarships". Daily Press. pp. B1, B2.

Same goes for your sources 3. It is a press release made by the owners of the place. Caruso, Kendra (January 19, 2025). "What is in Store for CMMC? Though Prime Healthcare Foundation is Non-Profit, It Is Operated By For-Profit Prime Healthcare". Sun Journal. pp. A1, A6.

And where is this source? "Saving Hospitals Starts With Getting the Facts Straight". The Los Angeles Times. October 12, 2014. p. A11. It is a brief passing mention that has nothing to do with the "notability" of a real secondary educational institution. It is nit that hard to prove notability and find sources to a notable educational institution that offer people "graduate degrees".

Bottom line, so far, there is not even 1 independent article that would provide more that 100 words about this place to help establish notability beyond their own press releases , and re-published press releases. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By-lined journalist written newspaper articles are not press releases. You obviously did not read the sources either. They are viewable in newspapers.com.4meter4 (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see you proving that journalist written by-liner. Can you share those? Source 1 is 99% press release, and it published in an absolutely different website. I am not sure if you are deliberately attempting to mislead people. https://www.vvdailypress.com/story/news/education/2025/06/24/dr-prem-reddy-family-foundation-hosts-scholarship-award-ceremony/84279901007

If you cannot provide links to the real sources, unfortunately, I will have to remove those that you added, because they do not seem to even exist. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I provided you with the link to the website with those exact sources that are 99% press release, 50% interview of the subject, which is by no means at all - an independent reliable source providing in-debt coverage. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an update: I had to remove those press-release sources. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WestwoodHights573:I reverted it because the sources were clearly WP:RS for these reasons: 1) All but one source has a by-line by a staff journalist which means they are not press releases 2) None of the sources were verifying anything controversial 3) The sources are from reliable newspapers with editorial boards. 4) The materials have original reporting not found anywhere else. 5) The articles were never published anywhere else as one would expect if these were in fact press releases. 6) Journalist written articles with partial interview text are allowable, and are not discredited as usable WP:RS as you seem to incorrectly imply here. If you disagree take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I have every confidence that it will be readily obvious to everyone there that the sources in question are not press release but are independent reliable RS (particularly since the content cited isn't to the interview portions of the materials). Your source analysis skills are woefully off. Fair warning if you remove by-lined journalist written sources published by respectable newspapers again from the article I will pursue next steps which may involve reporting you for Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. It's one thing to disagree about source materials, it's another matter to gut an article at AFD of all its WP:SECONDARY references in a way that could unduly manipulate/ skew an AFD discussion by removing materials from community view. Lastly the first source is available for viewing through the Wikipedia Library in newspaper.com. It was published on July 3, 2022 so the url you provided above for an article published in 2025 is from a completely different article by the same journalist. Providing urls is not mandatory as offline materials or materials accessible only through subscription database access are perfectly legit. (see Wikipedia:Offline sources)4meter4 (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Rony

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. I could find no significant coverage in Arabic or English RS, just a few identical press releases for his planned recording with Mohamed Ramadan, and routine coverage of the concert he did in Dubai. The rest is social media. Arabic media tend to use "DJ Rony", but editors searching for coverage that I missed should please note that there's an unrelated Lebanese DJ called "DJ Rony Seikaly". A previous attempt by another editor was moved to Draft:DJ Rony, the day before this version was created, at Dj Ron'y for some reason. Wikishovel (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iraq. Wikishovel (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Science High School Bicol Region Campus

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is no independent and reliable sources this article can rely on. Being a public school is backed by a charter is not a get-out-of-jail card against deletion. Yes the campus exist but I cannot find any third-party sources discussing the history of the school

These are among the campuses of the PSHS with the most scarce availability of sources. A handful of these could be a redirect to the main system article which does meet WP:GNG. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Catalyst (American newspaper)

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

Seems to fail WP:NORG. The article's cited sources are largely depreciated, primary, or otherwise not WP:RS. A search for articles produces trivial coverage ([[8]], [[9]], [[10]]), and a borderline case ([[11]]). Jcgaylor (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Education, and Colorado. Jcgaylor (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources about the 2002 controversy [12] [13] - I find that SPLC is a WP:RS.

Sources on the the satirical flyer [14] [15] (less substantive coverage, but still contributes to WP:N). FIRE states [16] that that the Colorado Springs Gazette put out a front-page story about this, we just don't have access to it since the archives are through NewsBank and are costly.

Under the WP:GNG, I believe there was significant coverage in independent reliable sources and so the topic is notable. Katzrockso (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gusa Regional Science High School

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is no independent and reliable sources this article can rely on. Being a public school is backed by a charter is not a get-out-of-jail card against deletion. Only sources present are the charter laws, NAT ranking, and link to the curriculum Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caraga Regional Science High School

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

Wholly unsourced. Fails WP:GNG. There is no independent and reliable sources this article can rely on. Being a public school is backed by a charter is not a get-out-of-jail card against deletion. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Science, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Lightbody

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

fails notability guidelines (GNG, SIGCOV and NBAD). zglph^•talk• 06:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Ireland. zglph^•talk• 06:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SIGCOV isn't met. In my own WP:BEFORE, I could find only two sources which appeared to treat the subject as their primary topic. And they barely even do that. And, even if they were entirely about the subject, wouldn't meet SIGCOV on their own. While I can find the subject mentioned in other news sources (independent.ie, rte.ie, Belfast Telegraph, etc) these types of passing mentions do not contribute to notability. The only sources which seem to deal with the subject as a primary topic are the types of "directory of pretty much every badminton player ever" entries that also don't contribute to notability. Can't conceive of a reasonable ATD (including redirect). Hence: delete... Guliolopez (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Vincent

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

having runner up at a tournament that does not pass WP:NBAD. GNG is also not met. zglph^•talk• 05:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and France. zglph^•talk• 05:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lundqvist

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

fails relevant notability guidelines. Doesn't pass NBAD either. The reference is just about the club information which is not considered reliable. zglph^•talk• 05:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Sweden. zglph^•talk• 05:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Fountain at IUPUI

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

This is a very brief article about a non-notable artwork at Indiana University. There are no in-line citations, and the references are either from the university or the company that created the artwork. I could not find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The artwork is sufficiently covered by Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis Public Art Collection. Rainsage (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Rainsage (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rainsage (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Rainsage (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Teeuwen

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

fails notability guidelines (GNG, NBAD and SIGCOV). zglph^•talk• 05:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Netherlands. zglph^•talk• 05:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacek Kołumbajew

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

fails notability guidelines (GNG, SIGCOV and NBAD). zglph^•talk• 05:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Poland. zglph^•talk• 05:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Equational prover

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

I found one independent source (https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/1210math.html), but no others. EQP is already mentioned on Robbins algebra and William McCune and the NYT source can be added to those pages. Truthnope (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Technology, and Computing. Truthnope (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to have been referenced by number of other authors in addition to the NYT article. Kspiers (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elín Þóra Elíasdóttir

AfDs for this article:

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

fails notability guidelines (NBAD, GNG and SIGCOV). A newspaper cutting has her mention , but no significant details can be found. zglph^•talk• 04:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Iceland. zglph^•talk• 04:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Leroux

(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. A redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics, where his name was mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not sure how deep of a dive was done, but there seems to be quite a few mentions in French newspaper archives for coverage. Admittedly, I didn't do a very deep dive either, but was able to find this article which details the French gymnastics national championship which the subject won back-to-back with the title being "L'Alsacien Georges Leroux Est Champion de France de Gymnastique" or "Alsatian Georges Leroux is French Gymnastics Champion". Additional mentions found here, here, here, here, here, and here. That's only via retronews.fr, it looks like there's even more coverage on gallica.bnf.fr and likely other repositories. GauchoDude (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics unless sources are added through editing. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC for being built entirely from a single database source. Note, that to keep the article at least one source must be present in the article with WP:SIGCOV that is not a database per SPORTSBASIC. It is not enough to merely identify sources under that guideline because there is a source presence requirement. Editing must happen or we should redirect/delete this.4meter4 (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see a source review of sources presented by User:GauchoDude.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per above, I am in no way saying that that's the only source material that exists. I'm merely sharing that I was able to find that within 5 minutes of searching for this AfD. It would be wholly unwise for someone to base their decision on what I was able to quickly find without others also digging with a bit of a specialty. Given that he lived in a pre-internet era in a non-English language country, we run the risk of our Wikipedia biases dictating our content here, especially if those who have less experience with searches like this ultimately dictate the outcome, which further reinforces those biases (more: WP:SBEXTERNAL). Not to pile on even more sources for a point that's not mine to prove, I took 5 more minutes and was able to find this fairly substantitive article and that he was the French national artistic gymnastics for three years running in addition to his Olympic appearance and further athletic mentions/accomplishments/reports here, here, here, and here. There's plenty out there, clearly. GauchoDude (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkelon rocket attacks

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

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROSELINE. Redirect to Sheikh Omar Hadid Brigade. Longhornsg (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Military, and Israel. Longhornsg (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ashkelon per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I also just added sources from The Guardian, Reuters, NBC News, Al Jazeera, and others further demonstrating notability. This was a multi-month bombing campaign between Israel and military insurgents in the Gaza strip that predates the current conflict. The article might need some improvements through editing but it meets the guidelines for inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is all news reporting of what happened. WP:NOTNEWS. Longhornsg (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep but redirect wouldnt be bad. ←Metallurgist (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Metallurgist: and @Gjb0zWxOb: How does this pass WP:EVENTCRIT or WP:GNG (which requires SECONDARY sources)? Contemporaneous reporting at the time of the event in the news is WP:PRIMARY. To become WP:SECONDARY coverage, sources must have distance from the event, and that doesn't seem to exist in the sources. (see https://libguides.ufv.ca/HistoricalNews which explains when news becomes secondary). I also question whether two separate rocket attacks are even necessarily the same event the way we have put them together here. This is why I thought a merge to Ashkelon could work. Best.4meter4 (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Im not really that fussed about it. I would like to see a lot of this PIACRUFT on both sides reduced. Its the most overly documented conflict in world history. ←Metallurgist (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention having so many standalone articles treating incidents as isolated means we inevitably cover them incompletely and without the right context (on all sides). Longhornsg (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree and I commend your work on this issue. ←Metallurgist (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to the article about the location. Happened a decade ago, with not much for lasting effects from the attack alone... News items are about all that describe the event. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ali Safa

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

The subject of this article does not seem to be notable whatsoever and the only sources used are from a since deprecated Iranian source. When I first reviewed this page for B-class it was flagged as only failing B4 grammar, however it was clear it was full of what was essentially Iranian government propaganda figures and claims backed up by these deprecated sources, as can be seen on the last version of the article before I first edited it. I propose this article for deletion for these reasons as I can't see how the subject is notable; the original Iranian editor clearly believed Safa deserved an article because he was a "Martyr" who died for Iran, as was his honorific prefix in the infobox before removal, but the lack of any reliable sources showing his notability say otherwise. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolution of Turner Broadcasting System

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

This article is largely a WP:CONTENTFORK of an isolated incident of a company with lots of history going defunct after a buyout. All of this information of the dissolution of Turner Broadcasting System is adequately covered at that company's page, and this fork article attempts to pinpoint select parts of that company's history and the fate of its assets together to justify its existence. Such "dissolution" articles are typically only warranted for regime changes, ie, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and not business decisions, especially when they lack much sourcing and any critical commentary or analysis of any potential impact this decision may have had. Not everything needs its own article, and I would think many readers would expect to read more about this company's fate in the article about the company itself, not a spin-off one that is probably not as easily found or sought after. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, Events, Business, and Companies. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Pretty redundant to main article, obviously no need for separate page. Reywas92^Talk 03:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agreed. Jcgaylor (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no merge This is something you'd expect to find on Wikia, not here, many items are unsourced or of no layperson interest (when they stopped using trademarks in quarterly reports and a lot of weasel words to make Turner look like it was being taken over by an amoral corporation), and most of all this is a good-faith deal, not at all comparable to some company taking over and leaving the other dry (AT&T/Cingular), especially over a near thirty year-period. This is a very WP:MILL slow absorbtion of one company into another and just reads as someone who loved Turner axe-grinding via an article that their favorite company was 'taken out' and mourning about it, which is not an appropriately-toned article at all. Nathannah • 📮 17:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Derdghaya Melkite Church airstrike

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Following WP:PAGEDECIDE, every airstrike in a broader war doesn't need its own page. This material is covered on Wikipedia on the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, to where this page should redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Christianity, Israel, and Lebanon. Longhornsg (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable event that received international coverage and reactions, similar to Church of Saint Porphyrius airstrike and Killing of Nahida and Samar Anton. There is a difference between redirecting singular airstrikes and whitewashing the bombing of an entire religious structure with civilians inside. (Which was already attacked 3 times previously per the article) Red Phoenician (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to policy, which this Afd is based on. WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Longhornsg (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as for WP:ITSIMPORTANT if you want me to be more specific, as partly stated before:

1. The article is about the destruction of a cultural and religious building which involved multiple civilian deaths.

2. It received international coverage from various news outlets with articles dedicated solely to covering the event.

3. It received statements from non-domestic leaders, Pope Francis and Cardinal Pizzaballa.

4. It recieved post event coverage.

I fail to see how the article is insignificant enough to be relegated to a redirect. Red Phoenician (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to a flurry of international press at the time of the event, there was much coverage of the church during the Christmas and Easter seasons following. There's also coverage in this journal article. Some other sources not used included Giannopoulos, Bill (October 12, 2024). "Israeli Airstrike Targets Melkite Greek Catholic Church". Greek City Times. and Frayer, Lauren (December 23, 2024). "What the Israel-Hezbollah war did to Lebanon's cultural heritage sites". NPR. This article refers to the church as heritage site. This wasn't just any building, but a historic 19th century church. I would support a move to an article on the church itself if someone cares to locate sources and go that direction. The bombing(s) could be covered in a larger article on the church itself. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and relevant, also the reasons outlined by Red Phoenician and 4meter4. JJNito197 (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean ~~delete~~. We dont even have an article for this church. We need a WP:ISRAELDIDATHING essay comparable to WP:TRUMPCRUFT. ←Metallurgist (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention Derdghaya barely has anything on it, even in Arabic. ←Metallurgist (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This just falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Red Phoenician (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it demonstrates that the place isnt notable to begin, so an attack there isnt particularly notable. This is another element of PIACRUFT. ←Metallurgist (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should add that I am not opposed to merging to Derdghaya. May actually switch to redirect on that basis. ←Metallurgist (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect to 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon per below. ←Metallurgist (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including international sources and secondary sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is a notable event that deserved its on page. Qhairun (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon per WP:SUSTAINED, and anything needed can be merged there. No need for a separate page on this per WP:PAGEDECIDE, as there's not much here and essentially no prospect for further expansion, given that no new RS coverage is happening. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect: to 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Some information could be merged, but a redirect would also be fine. Just another battle in a long war, no lasting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The war only lasted one month so I am not sure how it was "long". Lasting notability was already shown above with articles discussing the topic post-event and a journal article (provided by 4meter4) covering it which was published just 5 months ago. Red Phoenician (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olandria Carthen

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was recently deleted at AfD on October 6, but was quickly recreated. As I wrote then, she was a contestant on one season of one reality television show, where she was runner-up. Besides that, she's had a handful of fairly small-scale modeling appearances. Does not appear to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, and the fairly insubstantial coverage makes me skeptical she passes the WP:GNG. The sourcing in this new draft is arguably weaker than the deleted one. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Fashion, Africa, and Alabama. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Love Island (American TV series) contestants as an ATD. No major changes since the last AFD discussion. मल्ल (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing found below. मल्ल (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olandria has since won the People's Choice Award from EBONY Power 100, she's been listed as a luminary by Cosmopolitan, and she has been recognized by Vogue and Vanity Fair. Additionally, a runway debut for a luxury fashion brand is simply not a "small-scale" appearance. Moreover, the sourcing claim is simply false. The sourcing has greatly improved, including a plethora of coverage from established magazines and news organizations, such as CNN, New York Times, Variety, and USA TODAY. All this certainly makes Carthen meet the entertainer and notability guidelines. There are articles on Wikipedia for people with less recognition and less coverage. Daring Dolphin (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is the case from the previously deleted article as well, with the exception that Carthen had only been nominated for the EBONY award at that time. Being included in a magazine's top 100 list (or I guess named as a "special honoree" but not included in the list?) does not tip the scales to notability. Regarding "there are articles on Wikipedia for people with less recognition and less coverage": yes, but we are discussing this article at the moment. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for her not to have a Wikipedia page. I literally just went on Wikipedia to try to figure out if she is 27 and she went to college for four years (18-21/22) and in college she was recruited to be a elevator sales person which she said in yesterdays podcast she did for 3 years (22-25)what did she do in the other 2 or 3 years… yes, she was found on reality TV. But she has tapped into something so much bigger and that should be acknowledged. 2600:4040:5F05:9600:1081:ECA6:6B0:56DB (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This notion that nothing has changed since the previously deleted article is false. The previously deleted article (from September) did not adequately showcase her career since her appearance on the reality show, and the previous article had rather weak sources. There have been notable changes since then, which must be acknowledged as to why this article should not be deleted:

- She made her runway debut in Sergio Hudson - a luxury fashion brand.

- She won the EBONY Power 100 People's Choice Award, an award in which her fellow nominees included well-known actors, a politician, a musician, and an athlete, solidifying Carthen's notability as she won the award over them. And the magazine recognized her as such.

- The new sources in this article, which were not in the previously deleted article, validate Carthen's notability and solidify her entertainer status. If being recognized by CNN, The New York Times, Vogue, Vanity Fair, and Cosmopolitan don't speak to her notability, I simply don't know what does.

In summary, a lot has changed since the previous deletion (both in Carthen's life and in this article). These changes nullify any nomination for a deletion. Daring Dolphin (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I said last time that the Ebony (magazine)'s Power 100 was about to be awarded and in the meantime....she won the People's Choice Award. WP:ANYBIO is met imv -and if that award is not considered "a well-known and significant award or honor" at least a redirect, warranted as outright deletion would not be understandable (at all). Sources that were published since deletion include: https://variety.com/2025/scene/news/ebony-power-100-honorees-teyana-taylor-love-island-olandria-1236543592/ https://www.ebony.com/olandria-carthen-ebony-power-100-peoples-choice-award/ https://www.lakesmedianetwork.com/urban-ac/teyana-taylor-tracee-ellis-ross-and-more-to-be-honored-at-ebony-power-100-gala/ e.ux 23:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Trainsskyscrapers:, who accepted the page through the WP:AfC process.--e.ux 00:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find a New York Times article about her:https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/27/podcasts/love-island-olandria-nic-interview.html and an Ebony Magazine piece. Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we see a source analysis table for this article as we have very different opinions here on the state of the article sources and whether or not they are sufficient for establishing notability, as Wikipedia judges notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The case for retaining Olandria Carthen’s Wikipedia page is clear and compelling. Carthen’s notability is thoroughly substantiated by her high-profile modeling career, major brand partnerships, and consistent media coverage. She has secured a People’s Choice Award from EBONY Magazine, walked the runway at New York Fashion Week, and participated in acclaimed campaigns with brands such as UGG, Microsoft, and NYX Cosmetics—each covered by reputable publications.

This level of achievement and recognition is not only significant in its own right, but it also meets the standards commonly used to justify the inclusion of other public figures. For example, Amaya Espinal possesses a comparable, if not less extensive, record of professional credits, yet her Wikipedia page remains unchallenged. The discrepancy in the scrutiny applied to Carthen’s page, as opposed to Espinal’s, raises questions of equitability and consistency within the notability guidelines.

If the aim is to uphold Wikipedia’s standards, then Olandria Carthen’s portfolio—marked by industry accolades, media attention, and cultural influence—should be more than sufficient for her continued inclusion. Jessy4sho86 (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These 10 sources represent the article’s overall coverage of the subject.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/16/entertainment/nicolandria-love-island-reality-couples	Major independent news outlet, not affiliated with Carthen	Professional editorial oversight	Focused coverage on Carthen and partner, not just a brief mention	✔ Yes
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/27/podcasts/love-island-olandria-nic-interview.html	Independent publication, unaffiliated with subject	High editorial standards	In-depth interview about Carthen	✔ Yes
https://deadline.com/2025/08/love-island-usa-olandria-carthen-uta-digital-brand-architects-1236483334/	Independent entertainment news outlet	Recognized trade publication	Focused on Carthen’s professional activities	✔ Yes
https://www.essence.com/beauty/love-island-olandria-carthen-discusses-beauty-standards-exclusive/	Independent magazine	Lifestyle/entertainment focus, editorial oversight	Feature article focused on Carthen discussing beauty standards	✔ Yes
https://www.ebony.com/olandria-carthen-love-island-vmas-black-beauty/	Independent publication, unaffiliated	Editorial oversight, generally reliable	Full feature highlighting Carthen in VMAs/Black Beauty context	✔ Yes
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2025/09/13/love-island-usa-olandria-nic-nyfw-sergio-hudson-nicolandria/86128647007/	National news outlet, independent	Professionally edited	~ Focused on fashion event, Carthen featured but not full article on her	~ Partial
https://variety.com/2025/scene/news/ebony-power-100-honorees-teyana-taylor-love-island-olandria-1236543592/	Entertainment industry publication, independent	Established trade publication	~ Highlighted as honoree for People's Choice Award	~ Partial
https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2025/06/04/meet-olandria-carthen-alabama-contestant-on-love-island-usa-season-7/84028224007/	Independent newspaper	Reliable local journalism	Full feature introducing Carthen as contestant	✔ Yes
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a68132410/gen-z-influencers-2025/	Independent lifestyle publication	Professional editing, generally reliable	~ Listicle; mentions Carthen among several Gen Z influencers	~ Partial
https://afrotech.com/olandria-carthen-had-to-get-creative-to-fund-tuskegee-university?utm_source=chatgpt.com	Independent tech platform	~ Tech news outlet with editorial oversight	In-depth story on her personal efforts to fund her education; dedicated to her journey	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Based on multiple independent, reliable sources, including CNN, NYT, Deadline, etc, Carthen receives significant coverage that is clearly focused on her television, professional, and cultural contributions. She has been recognized and awarded for those contributions, as an influencer, TV personality, and model, by Vogue, Cosmopolitan, and EBONY Magazine. A review of both in-depth and partial sources demonstrates that she meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline for entertainment figures (WP:N).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daring Dolphin (talk • contribs)

Delete. Clearly fails WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not truthful that Olandria’s career surrounds one event. In the Wikipedia article, as it currently stands, the first paragraph in her “Career” section is focused on her stint on the reality show. The following three paragraphs focus on her career moves after her TV appearance, including her modeling career, and sources highlight that as well. Carthen has been specifically acknowledged and praised for not being a one-hit wonder and building a career as a model and influencer outside of the show. Therefore, I don’t believe it’s fair or accurate at all to state that the subject is tied to solely one event. Daring Dolphin (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point to the sources that back up your claim. I see zero WP:SIGCOV of a career outside of Love Island. Please list them below so we can all view and evaluate.4meter4 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Articles linked in paragraph)

Carthen has partnered with mutiple companies and spoken on multiple campuses, solidifying her career as an influencer. She made her runway debut for a luxury fashion brand during New York Fashion Week in September. She has modeled in brand campaigns as well. She's been awarded by EBONY for "her impact that extends far beyond reality TV" and awarded by Cosmopolitan for "entertain[ing] the masses". She's been acknowledged and covered in-depth for demonstrating how to build influence that lasts. Carthen started on reality TV, yes, but she has gone on to build a notable career afterwards. And time and time again in this deletion discussion, I and others have provided multiple sources that highlight that career and contribute to the general notability guidelines.

And I also think it's pertinent to highlight a point we keep circling back to: During the 1st nomination of deletion of this article, deletion was justified (then) because it was very early out from her TV stint and there was limited notable coverage. That has since changed, which is why the second submission of this article was approved for creation. Notability has been established, significant coverage has been granted, and sources have been provided, improved, and assessed (now at length). Therefore, this current article simply does not warrant a deletion and should be kept. Daring Dolphin (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think we need more consensus about if something truly has changed in the 2 weeks between the close of the last AfD and the start of this one as has been claimed here. Pinging the extended confirmed participants from the last discussion who have not participated here yet: @GothicGolem29, ChildrenWillListen, Scope creep, Ravenswing, MarioProtIV, Babysharkboss2, Fortuna imperatrix mundi, EF5, Kokaynegeesus, and GrinningIodize:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources in the source table provided by Daring Dolphin Olandria Carthern has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources and so meets WP:BASIC (thanks for the ping Barkeep49).GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect What "significant media coverage" has this person received outside from their own community? A People's Choice Award does not signify "significant media coverage." And most sources listed are tabloid magazines that specialize in celebrity news and entertainment (i.e., Cosmopolitan, EBONY). I would take this discussion more seriously if it wasn't proven already that the subjects fans have orchestrated public campaigns on other sites (most notably X) to keep this article up. Doesn't help that many Wikipedia users were harassed and targeted by these same fans for voting to not keep the article. Also, the last time this article was created, it was made up of entirely AI. Administrators also detected multiple sockpuppet accounts voting multiple times to keep the page up. If this behavior persists they will be pinged again. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- As listed in source assessment table, CNN, The New York Times, Deadline, and USA Today are not tabloids.

- There has been limited involvement of the "Subject's fans" in this deletion discussion, compared to previous deletion discussion. Current article was approved by Wikipedia user, and multiple Wikipedia users have stated the article should be kept in this discussion, adding to consesus.

- Can confirm that this current, fleshed out article, as it stands, was not written with AI. Daring Dolphin (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there more sources from CNN, NYT and Deadline? Or is it just those provided? I see multiple from Cosmopolitan, Variety and Vogue. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I kindly advise you and all users participating in this deletion discussion to view the source assessment table that was provided per request. The source assessment table provides a list of sources that are independent, reliable, and showcase significant coverage of the subject. The SA table also proves that this article has changed from its prior nomination (as coverage has grown and sources have improved) and that the subject meets the general notability guidelines.

With the source assessment table, @Katzrockso’s extensive analysis of sources and arguments presented in this discussion, and the input provided by multiple Wikipedia users, I believe consensus has been reached for the article to be kept. The main arguments for it to be deleted/redirected have been rebuffed. With that in mind, and in line with Wikipedia’s recommendations (WP:RELIST), I would advise against prolonging this discussion and/or relisting this discussion once again. Daring Dolphin (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WP:GNG. That the subject is notable is quite well-established by the sources given in the source assessment table above (despite several issues - several sources like Essence and Ebony provide more marginal WP:SIGCOV because larger portions of the content are derived from interviews, but I think the CNN, Deadline, Montgomery Advertiser articles establish notability most definitely in the context of the 1E, and the Deadline, Variety, and USA Today articles demonstrate that the notability goes beyond the 1E), that I doubt anyone can convincingly rebut. The more legitimate argument here is that the article fails WP:BLP1E, given that a large amount of the sourcing surrounds her coverage as a contestant on Love Island. However, as noted in WP:BLP1ENOT, in order for an article to fail WP:BLP1E, all three criteria must be met, and I would argue all three fail. Reliable sources cover the person in contexts other than the 'one event' (the game show) - see e.g. her coverage for the runway debut. She is not a 'low profile' individual - she was already an Instagram influencer with a substantial number of followers before even the show, from what I found online, and she has only increased her high-profile figure following the show, where she has engaged in many interviews, etc. Finally, the third prong would require that her "role within the event was [either] not substantial or well-documented". I think her role in the TV show was both substantial and well-documented. Well-documented is obvious from the extensive coverage on her, but substantial from the fact that she was in just about the entire show, finishing second place and sparking a lot amount of the media coverage with her relationship with costar Nic - she was not a minor character pushed out in episode 1 or a staff member.

As for the previous AfD, editors did not analyze any sources found in a WP:BEFORE search, so either they failed to find the same sources that were identified by Daring Dolphin here or the lack of analysis of sources means the !votes are mere WP:JNN.

For the record, I have never watched this show in my life and have no plans to. Katzrockso (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above (thanks @Barkeep49: for the ping). Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 13:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Czeslaw Krysa

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

I can find no evidence that this person meets WP:BASIC. The best source I can find is from Michigan State University. Others are less helpful in a notability context. This obituary comes from a small publication where Krysa had a weekly column, so I don't think it's independent. There's also a local news Q&A, which is effectively a primary source. There are other scattered mentions of Krysa out there, but none focus on the man himself (nor can I find sources that support much of what's in the article right now). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also to note: be aware that the article as it exists now is likely AI-generated. The creator has used AI in many of their other edits, such as Draft:Michigan Alkali Company and White House State Ballroom. A valid alternative here could be WP:DRAFTREASON. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and New York. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of passing WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - his last church, St. Casimir Roman Catholic Church, is probably notable, but not him. Parish priests are rarely considered notable without significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NCREATIVE and WP:GNG. He is notable as an artist. He has non-trivial coverage for his work as a pisanki artist in Kamuda, Alan (March 28, 1991). "Spectacular Shells: Priest Brings Craft to Orchard Lake". Detroit Free Press. p. 10F. and "Fr. Czeslaw Krysa". Lansing State Journal. August 2, 2003. p. 65. which covers his work as a featured artist at an Art Festival at the University of Muchigan. There's also coverage of his teaching of the Polish art of palm weaving in Kamuda, Alan (March 23, 1994). "Weaving of Palm Fronds Stems from Old Tradition". Detroit Free Press. p. 60A. There is also a lengthy article covering his work as a maker of krupnik in Galarneau, Andrew Z. (February 23, 2020). "King of Krupnik: Kaistertown Priest Has Become a Master at Making the Buckwheat Honey-Based Liqueur of Eastern Poland". The Buffalo News. pp. F7, F8. Altogether, he demonstrates notability as a practitioner of various Polish folk arts.4meter4 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @4meter4: I appreciate the diving into sources I don't seem to have access to! With the site you're using, is it possible to see snippets to evaluate SIGCOV? Also, it would be great to get these added to the article, perhaps after it's been TNT'd to remove unverifiable AI-written content. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are viewable in newspapers.com which is available through the Wikipedia Library. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Let me know if more sources are discovered. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um. I provided three sources with WP:SIGCOV. The sources are already sufficient to pass WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable newspaper sources identified by 4meter4 that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atsuo Asami

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

Non-notable amateur astronomer, sourced only to a database. Tagged for expansion from French but the French article is sourced only from a line in a local meeting announcement and a line in a table. Being a minor planet discoverer is not itself a criterion for notability; we need depth of sourcing or significant scholarly impact. Passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Renerpho (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC) EDIT: I'd also be fine with the merge to Japan Spaceguard Association that was suggested below, if that page mentioned him (which it currently doesn't, so my vote remains to delete). Renerpho (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC) Change to merge to Japan Spaceguard Association#Members, where he is now mentioned (per discussion below). Renerpho (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom CabinetCavers (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RenerphoNow mentioned on the page; see Japan Spaceguard Association#Members. e.ux 14:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; technically the merge is more or less done- and a simple redirect should suffice.@Renerpho e.ux 14:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, yes. Renerpho (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Astronomy, and Japan. e.ux 00:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7 listed discoveries of minor planets- his work seems to have had an impact on the discipline and beyond according to existing coverage: https://www.astroarts.co.jp/article/hl/a/3323 https://dot.asahi.com/articles/-/245291?page=3 so if not keep, [merge]redirect into Japan Spaceguard Association#Members of which Asami is one of the members [-none mentioned on the page yet-]; https://www.spaceguard.or.jp/ASUTE/a30/bisei/bisei30_02.html --e.ux 00:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Asahi dot article *literally* just credits Asami Atsuo in two photo captions; the first source is a passing mention that provides next to nothing to expand the article with. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 02:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why I am suggesting a merge [redirect] if the page is not kept. e.ux 02:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC) [What you call "*literally* just credit[ing] Asami Atsuo in two photo captions" refers to images of the estimated damage of a 100-meter-diameter asteroid fall on Nagoya (not a snapshot of his dog or his family, but the result of research, showing he has some kind of authority in the domain..)[reply]
@Eva UX: Neither the discovery of minor planets nor the mere fact that he is conducting research into asteroids (and their possible impacts) establish that the subject is notable. The ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planet discoverers may be relevant to your argument. A lot of the people currently listed in List of minor planet discoverers are not notable, and a trimmed down version is in preparation at User:Renerpho/List of minor planet discoverers. Renerpho (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, again, if discovering 7 minor planets, which is 7 more than the usual person, and having their research used in mainstream media is not enough for a standalone article, it does make him, imv, notable enough for a minimal [merge in] redirect to Japan Spaceguard Association#Members -, as an Wikipedia:ATD that would help expand and source the target page. e.ux 13:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)- per WP:ATD-R: that section in a page presenting Wikipedia's deletion policy, that states: "A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate". --e.ux 14:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with the merge. Renerpho (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've copied the content to User:Urhixidur/List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers so that it's not lost. Urhixidur (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Urhixidur: What's your argument for keeping, other than maybe an indication that you want it to be userfied? Renerpho (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've looked, and can't find sources to support notability (but I concede that this might be a product of the fact that the Japanese internet doesn't like retaining newspaper articles). It looks like Urhixidur (essentially the sole author) has copied this to their userspace, so no need to keep the mainspace version. Oppose a redirect, as I default oppose any redirects from living people's names without a very good reason. (What if they leave the organization? What if they leave in a very acrimonious way? Especially in this case, as it would stop the reader from finding the many articles in which Asami is mentioned & thus be actively harmful... ) GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 01:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ndi Kato

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

Fails notability guideline for politicians and the routine sources talking about her time as the spokesperson for the Labour party, running for the House of assembly or dumping of one party to another could not pass the general notability guideline Ibjaja055 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo Jack: G'Day U.S.A.!

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

non-notable direct to video movie. could not find any sources HomerSimpson&PeterGriffinFan2007 (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. HomerSimpson&PeterGriffinFan2007 (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found one additional source with a small mention [17]. But I think this film is sufficiently covered by Kangaroo Jack. Rainsage (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Costello, Brian (2021-10-10). "Parents' Guide to Kangaroo Jack: G'Day USA!". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2025-11-04. Retrieved 2025-11-04.
  The review notes: "Kangaroo Jack: G'Day U.S.A.! is a very silly movie that, on occasion, veers into obnoxious humor. In other words: This movie is unafraid to use flatulence to garner some laughs. Much of its humor is derived from food fights, one-dimensional portrayals of, say, "surfer dudes," and slapstick-style violence. None of this is quite enough to carry the movie, but it's enough to keep families entertained, assuming this is their style of humor. Even when showing the plight of exotic animals captured by poachers, this is still, at its core, a cartoon caper. For families, the entertainment value of the film is inevitably dependent on how much they enjoy this kind of thing, and how much silliness they're willing to tolerate."
2. Flores, Angelique (2004-08-22). "'Jack' Jumps Straight to Video". Video Store Magazine. Vol. 26, no. 35. p. 51. EBSCOhost 14232546.
  The article notes: "As part of its newly branded "Kids Movie Collection" series of original films, Warner Home Video is releasing Kangaroo Jack: G'Day U.S.A.!, a fulllength animated sequel straight to video Nov. 16 (prebook Oct. 19) at $24.98 on DVD and $14.94 on VHS. More than 50 minutes of DVD extras include a 10-minute National Geographic documentary on kangaroos and the Australian outback; an interactive challenge; a Kangaroo rap sequence; and a featurette on how to draw a kangaroo by one of the film's animators."
3. "products & promotions". Supermarket News. Vol. 52, no. 41. Penton Media. 2004-10-11. p. 38. ISSN 0‌0‌3‌9‌-‌5‌8‌0‌3‌. EBSCOhost 14796415.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: ignored ISSN errors (link)
  The article notes: ""Kangaroo Jack G'Day U.S.A." hops its way into stores on Nov. 16. The release, an all-new animated feature film from Warner Home Video, has a pre-order date of Oct. 19. As part of the newly branded "Kids Movie Collection" series of full-length films, WHV will embark on a marketing campaign that will target children between ages six and 12, as well as their parents. The campaign will generate more than 260 million impressions of the new title through a multi-faceted campaign that includes television, print and online advertising."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Beck, Marilyn (2004-08-30). "Jerry O'Connell won't jump into 'Kangaroo' just yet". Corpus Christi Caller-Times. p. B8. ProQuest 2644423459.
    The article notes: "Meanwhile, O'Connell loves his regular role on "Crossing Jordan," which is soon to begin its fourth season. He's definitely not on board the sequel to the silly 2003 "Kangaroo Jack" flick that hopped off with close to a $90 million worldwide gross. "I was all set to do the 'Kangaroo Jack 2' movie, and I don't want to pooh pooh the next film," he explains, "but a lot of people were calling me 'Kangaroo guy,' and it was a little tough to shake. So I thought, 'You know what, I better just stop my luck there and cash in my check.'" O'Connell adds that partner-in-slapstick Anthony Anderson also turned down the follow-up flick upon learning of his deci-sion. "As a 30-year-old actor you only get a few years to really give people a sense of what you're capable of."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kangaroo Jack: G'Day U.S.A.! to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Eva UX (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Cunard. Coverage allows to expand the page and is sufficient for notability imv. The March 20, 2005 issue of The Sunday Journal has coverage according to JSTOR but I can't open it. e.ux 09:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources listed above are enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Milhouse Van Houten

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

non-notable simpsons character. can be redirected to the list. HomerSimpson&PeterGriffinFan2007 (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. HomerSimpson&PeterGriffinFan2007 (talk) 00:38, 4 November 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 ☎ ✎ 02:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - according to a Google search episodes, Milhouse Van Houten has been in 300 episodes. That seems notable to me. Non-notable characters don't get written into every episode. — Maile (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Maile. Definitely a notable character, one of the most prolific in the series after the main family members. Nominator has only 33 edits to their name and needs to have a good read up on notability before creating such pointless discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Classic WP:JUSTNOTABLE. No indication that the WP:BEFORE search required by the WP:Deletion process was done, otherwise the nominator would have seen that there are many secondary sources establishing notability. Just one example. Daranios (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gscholar has several analysis or discussions of this character. I think we have more than enough for notability. This book also discusses many things about the series, including Milhosue [18]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here as well [19]. With coverage in Germany [20], and in Mexico [21], showing international reach. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! This is neat stuff to read — Maile (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep seems like a joke nomination Olliefant (she/her) 17:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close. I think we are done here. Rhino131 (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patriots and Tyrants

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

Fails GNG, the only bits of coverage I found was this, an interview with TV Guide and not independent, and this, an IGN review which I have no problems with. Possible ATD is List of Jericho episodes Olliefant (she/her) 00:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Texas, and Wyoming. Olliefant (she/her) 00:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. There is an entire chapter devoted to this episode in Bussolini, Jeffrey. "Jericho, Patriots and Tyrants". In Bianculli, David; Howard, Douglas L. (eds.). Television Finales: From Howdy Doody to Girls. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 9780815654476. Other books with coverage include the following:

Bennett, Eve (2019). "Patriarchal Conspiracies and Female Victims". Gender in Post-9/11 American Apocalyptic TV: Representations of Masculinity and Femininity at the End of the World. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781501331091.

Pinedo, Isabel (2010). "Things in This Country Are Gonna Change Pretty Fast: Dissent, Mobilization, and the Politics of Jericho". In Foy, Joseph J.; Dale, Timothy M. (eds.). Homer Simpson Marches on Washington: Dissent Through American Popular Culture. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 9780813139708.

Santaularia, Isabel (2014). ""There's Some Things Apocalypse Can't Change" Gender in Jericho". In Russell, Elizabeth; Gallardo,, Pere (eds.). Yesterday's Tomorrows: On Utopia and Dystopia. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 9781443858779.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some quotes or a link to better assess the coverage? Olliefant (she/her) 03:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all the eps to List of Jericho episodes. ←Metallurgist (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The sources clearly demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. An episode with an entire book chapter devoted to it, and several other non-trivial coverage in books passes our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Davis (soccer)

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources. Let'srun (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Maryland, and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage are found. Fade258 (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Martin (soccer)

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, Michigan, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fail WP:GNG. The only sources cited are team rosters. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Schutte Hammermill

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

Non notable company. No sigcov. Equine-man (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files

File:Capa, Death of a Loyalist Soldier.jpg

Should be PD, author died in '54 Jay Cubby 17:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no visible copyright indication, and the author died over 70 years ago, it will be public domain. ^Wiinter_U 17:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as it was published between 1930 and 1977* ^Wiinter_U 17:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mess of publication, however. Jay Cubby 17:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The Falling Soldier was first published in the September 23, 1936, issue of the French magazine Vu (below), where it was reproduced with another, similar picture on the same page" FYI —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 21:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like quite a historical image, we should check US renewal records first. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 21:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix: I could find books containing the photograph, but haven't figured out how to work the pre-1979 card catalog yet. Jay Cubby 01:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCubby: it's at [22]; just look at the years 1936+22, 1936+23 and 1936+24. I might do this later. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 16:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix, were you able to find whether the copyright was renewed after publication? Jay Cubby 22:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the years above, and it wasn't. In the future though please remember the burden of proof is on you if you want to transfer to Commons. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 16:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Cornell copyright guide and it seems to be that comes under "Published in the US more than 30 days after publication abroad, without compliance with US formalities, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996" and therefore copyright is for 95 years from publication, so it seems to me it's still non-free in the US. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exploratorium Logo.png

Orphaned, superseded by File:Exploratorium logo.svg on Commons. ✗plicit 05:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Public gathering at funeral of Zubin Garg.jpg

File:Public gathering at funeral of Zubin Garg.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Fails WP:NFCCP#8, as you don't need to see a picture of a crowd to know there was a big crowd. FDW777 (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Transpeptidation

Transpeptidation → Transpeptidase (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Transpeptidase (disambiguation) → Transpeptidase (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Straight to the point – Reasons 1 and 5 of WP:RFD#DELETE:
Transpeptidation → delete
Transpeptidase (disambiguation) – three options:
→ 1: delete both target page and this redirect
→ 2: delete target instead, move its contents into this redirect
→ 3:^{[added. 12:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)]} make target into an article, make this redirect into an actual disamb page as named so.

Both link to a disamb page; you'd think the page with "(disambiguation)" literally in its name/title would be the disamb page, but no! It also doesn't make sense to redirect "transpeptidation" to "transpeptidase" – that's like redirecting polymerization to polymerase, and the latter is just a disamb page anyway (despite not having "(disambiguation)" in its name/title). I also don't think that a disambiguation for transpeptidase needs to exist; it's a class of enzymes, it's not exactly a "may refer to" situation since nobody uses the word to mean specifically a particular protein, unless they specified that protein. Since I don't have enough knowledge for either subject to make them into articles myself, I decided to choose deletion, hoping it becomes a red link somewhere for someone see and turn it into an article.

If I recall correctly, I only just discovered transpeptidation/-ase because I saw the former word mentioned in peptidyl transferase center, and I tried to wikilink that until I discovered... (Perhaps no wonder it wasn't hyperlinked?) And that's why we're here now. CheckNineEight (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @CheckNineEight: I've combined these into a single listing. I will update the link at Transpeptidase (disambiguation) so it points to this discussion. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might have also missed this: Transpeptidase – which serves as the {{R with possibilities}} rather than Transpeptidase (disambiguation).
Can you also fix the link at Transpeptidation, by the way? CheckNineEight (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~both~~ Transpeptidase (disambiguation). The reason we have redirects like Transpeptidase (disambiguation) is described at WP:INTDABLINK. Transpeptidation is ~~usually~~ often discussed in the context of transpeptidases; the same is not true vis-à-vis polymerization. Perhaps a one-line description of transpeptidation could be added to the dab page although that might not survive clean up. It may be an {{R with possibilities}} but I'm not sure a description beyond what's in the enzyme articles is warranted. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, because transpeptidation is the process of joining amino acids or peptides (peptide bond formation), and it's not exclusive to transpeptidases (e.g., peptidyl transferase center; i.e., the word is found on the following articles: Translation (biology), 23S ribosomal RNA). CheckNineEight (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deleting transpeptidation. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it's decided only Transpeptidase (disambiguation) should be kept. Also, I forgot that I had a 3rd option for that, which is: swap it with its target and make Transpeptidase – the one without the parentheticals – into its own article (no deletions, but no more redirect – just an article and a disamb). Speaking of options, I realized that I could have worded my original post much better, and I also forgot to put "(disambiguation)" in "Transpeptidase – two options:". (Can I edit my post?) CheckNineEight (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 'transpeptidase' label is clear enough but you can edit it to add '(disambiguation)'. It's always good to exercise caution around changing the wording in discussion posts but in this case it isn't likely to mislead and you can always add an updated timestamp or make a note about the change. There's some general guidance at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments. Transpeptidase is a good candidate for a set index article. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget Transpeptidation to Translation (biology) where it's defined. Keep Transpeptidase (disambiguation) per the above. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:21, 27 October 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, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Schmear

Schmear → List of English words of Yiddish origin#Schmeer (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lawrence Cohen/work/Schmear/draft – speedy close
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schmear – redirect to Cream cheese

A recent AfD closed with this redirecting to Cream cheese. The closer noted that there was some disagreement about the proper target and suggested further discussion could occur at the talk page or RfD. Shortly after the AfD closed, the original nominator unilaterally retargeted this to their preferred article, which received limited support in the original discussion. Following a brief discussion at Talk:Schmear#Where to redirect? and on my user talk page I am bringing this here for more visibility and input. I will notify AfD participants and suggested target pages.

The proposed options are:

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC) Edit: Jewish food is a redirect to Jewish cuisine so I've updated that in the listing. 17:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Bagel and cream cheese where the word is defined and appears multiple times, including in the second paragraph of the lead and in an image caption. This has more detail that the other page and provides relevant context. The other meanings in Yiddish are likely of less interest to the average reader but a link to the entry at List of English words of Yiddish origin#Schmeer could be placed in Bagel and cream cheese. (Copied with some edits from my AfD !vote.) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Myceteae. ←Metallurgist (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Myceteae and Metallurgist. Any time I have seen this in any media, that has been the meaning. BD2412 T 18:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shameena Riaz

Shameena Riaz → India women's national squash team (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Once again, another example of a redirect that is costly when search results give a much better overview of the player rather than just her national team: [23] Delete Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Siya

Liu Siya → China national badminton team (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Yet another example of a badminton redirect that redirects to just the team where she is not mentioned, rather than search results which will give much better results: [24] Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruqayya Salem

Ruqayya Salem → Egypt women's national squash team (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Search results will give a much better overview of her rather than just the national team she plays for: [25] Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn McAlpine

Robyn McAlpine → Scotland women's national squash team (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Search results will come up with more rather than just her national team: [26]. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

C Lalramsanga

C Lalramsanga → 2025 BWF World Junior Championships (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Search results will give a much better overview of his career, as shown here: [27] rather than a single snapshot of his career. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suryaksh Rawat

Suryaksh Rawat → 2025 BWF World Junior Championships (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Search results will give a much better overview of his career where users can find where he actually played rather than a single snapshot of his career. Let's just look at search results. This redirect is actually a costly one. There is basically content history whatsoever to lose. Just Delete. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BFDI drafts

Draft:Battle for dream island → Battle for Dream Island (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Draft:JnJ → Battle for Dream Island (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These drafts were created after the main article, Battle for Dream Island, so serve no purpose and should be deleted. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 08:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated as cross-namespace redirects should not be created without a compelling justification. Katzrockso (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dawans

Dawans → Sigismund-Helmut von Dawans (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This does not seem like a useful redirect - only one "Dawans" currently on en:wikipedia, and although it is a relatively rare name, there are multiple articles on other persons with this name on other language wikipedias, including one with a highly similar name to the current target (see Wikidata, fr:Adrien Dawans, de:Sigismund von Dawans). If not redirect, could be a short disambiguation page. Shazback (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation with interlanguage links seems the best solution. -- Recon rabbit 18:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The purpose of redirects from a surname is to assist the reader who can only remember the surname or who does to wish to type out the full name. They are used either when Wikipedia has only one article about a person with the given surname (this case) or because one individual is the most likely topic sought by this surname. See WP:RKEEP #6. Greenshed (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post-cycle therapy

Post-cycle therapy → Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Post cycle therapy → Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Post Cycle Therapy → Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. An article at Post-cycle therapy was redirected per Afd and it doesn't appear that any content was merged. The only mention of the phrase occurs at exemestane but I'm not sure that such a specific topic would be a good redirect target for the term. Deletion may be best. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per a cursory Google search this terminology is associated with anabolic steroid use. It's possible that an article could now be written or sufficient coverage could be added to an existing article (WP:RETURNTORED) but the unsourced content in the 2009 article is a poor starting point. It's certainly something people may search for and sending them to an article that doesn't cover the topic is unhelpful. Pointing to one of many drugs that can be used for PCT is also unhelpful. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pages for deletion and similar titles

Wikipedia:Pages for deletion → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:PFD → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:Pfd → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:PfD → Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Pages are not just limited to articles; they are also categories, files, templates, etc. I should also note that Wikipedia:PfD redirects to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. I believe these redirects should be retargeted somewhere else, maybe Wikipedia:Deletion process#Deletion discussion venues. Also, tell me if there are redirects similar to the ones being nominated that I missed. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 14:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I noticed that WP:PFD was linked on a page created in 2005, though I created the page in 2014. I then noticed that WP:PFD was speedy deleted in 2012 per WP:G8. Admins ... what did WP:PFD target before being deleted in 2012? Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding stating that "...WP:PFD redirects to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion": Umm, no it doesn't... Steel1943 (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I meant Wikipedia:PfD, with a lowercase F. My bad. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 16:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the discussion, considering what happens to one "PFD" title should affect the others. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...Discovered via WP:REFUND that the answer to my question is: WP:PFD apparently used to target Wikipedia:Page for Drunks in 2012. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe disambiguate? I thought we already had a DAB or similar page for different deletion discussions but I can't find it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the minimum, keep Wikipedia:Pages for deletion. This is a former/historical name of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion which apparently predates the "other" former name of AfD "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" (which was apparently a transition all "Pages for deletion" titles made in 2005). See the search of pages that begin with "Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/" for further details. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget the rest (PFD, PfD, Pfd) to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (for the ones that do not already). I'm not seeing any evidence that AfD (or any of its predecessor names) was ever referred to as "PFD" ~~(pending my inquiry about the pre-2012 state of Wikipedia:PFD)~~, meaning the most plausible title which this acronym could refer to in the "XfD" group of pages is a non-existent "Wikipedia:Portals for deletion", which is a redirect towards Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per this statement, prior to being deleted in 2012, Wikipedia:PFD targeted Wikipedia:Page for Drunks ... which is ... well, silly. Either way, since WP:PFD, WP:Pfd and WP:PfD were created in 2014, 2024 and 2019 respectively, this further establishes that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion was never known as "PFD" ... which enforces my previous comment in this discussion thread. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that all the pages with the Pages for deletion prefix were moved to the versions with Articles for deletion when the venue was renamed at some point. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 01:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't it be better to retarget all to match wp:xfd, and then add a hatnote there? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 00:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I oppose this option for Wikipedia:Pages for deletion per my finds above. I'm "weak oppose" regarding the rest since I prefer my resolution since it matches an established naming scheme. Steel1943 (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all to Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Deletion_discussion_venues per Consarn, except I wouldn't even add a hatnote. We shouldn't care about what something may or may not have been called for a short period ages ago. And even if we did care it's not even clear going to AfD would be correct, as the relevant era was before individual deletion discussion venues were split out so there is no equivalent to the old VfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What we now know as Project:Articles for deletion was for Project:Pages for deletion for about a week at the end of August and start of September 2005. I myself briefly favoured "pages" over "articles" (as can be seen in the contemporary archives of Project talk:Articles for deletion) which were two of several suggestions, until people came up with the idea that became Project:Miscellany for deletion that satisfied the concerns that led to a preference for "pages". People ran the deletion mechanisms with "Pages for deletion" as the name for that week, until we adjusted what the templates were doing (c.f. the same contemporary discussions), making per-article pages and per-day pages with "pages" in the names. There was likewise a Category:Pages for deletion.
I created Project:Miscellany for deletion at the end of August (Special:Diff/21961239), and the process switched from "pages" to "articles" a short while later. We had already split out images, categories, and other stuff by that point (two years beforehand in the case of images for deletion), so it is not the case that "pages for deletion" ever encompassed things that were not pages, such as images.
I have no attachment to the shortcuts that were created a decade or two after the fact, but the actual Project:Pages for deletion redirect is correctly targetted, as it currently stands, at where both it and all of its sub-pages (Special:Prefixindex/Project:Pages for deletion, including the per-day pages for that week) actually ended up being renamed to.
And yes, pages are not limited to articles. As one of the several people who brought up this point 20 years ago, e.g. at Special:Diff/21958405, I can confirm that none of us who made the point back then has been worried that we've had redirects from "pages for deletion" to "articles for deletion", reflecting the actual history, for all of that time. We've likewise not been worried that Project:Votes for deletion and a similar lot of sub-pages redirect to the same place, even though, 20 years ago, the fact that "votes" are not "articles" was a point similarly made back then. As one of the people who did the work, and even made the point, 20 years ago, I think that it's a little fussy to re-argue it over the redirects that resulted, and inconsistent to argue it over merely one of those many redirects.
Uncle G (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Pages for deletion as a former name for for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Target the WP:PFD redirects to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion as an abbreviation for Wikipedia:Portals for deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget all to Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Deletion_discussion_venues per @consarn. Unless there is a historical projectspace page that describes that AfD used to be Pages for deletion, we should not add a hatnote per @Pppery. On Wikipedia, every namespace is composed of pages. The "X" in "XfD" functions as an "insert page type here". Retargeting would also maintain consistency with the averarching category for XfDs, Category:Pages for discussion. The fact that AfD was Pages for deletion for a single week from August–September 2005 does not justify retaining the redirect twenty years later. I've never seen MfD referred to as "Portals for discussion" or "Portals for deletion" so oppose retargetting any of these to MfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

should've mentioned that my comment wasn't a vote. not that that's worth much consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused

Not to be confused → Word-sense disambiguation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

2023 October 10 § Not to be confused – retarget

So ... Lucid? Delete as hopelessly ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair I'm thinking this is because a lot of disambiguation hatnotes on Wikipedia-- and elsewhere-- start with "not to be confused with". 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are plenty of similar things out there that might get confused besides just words, where someone would use the phrase "not to be confused with ...". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a common phrase that does not have a corresponding encyclopedia article. I was astonished to see what this targets. The article does not even describe the most common uses, which are for different words that are spelled or pronounced similarly or concepts that are often confused or conflated (which may have very dissimilar names). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 01:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because a corresponding encyclopedia article doesn't exist doesn't mean there doesn't have to be a template/redirect. (That is very common (such as {{Uw-move3}}). Plus "Not to be confused with" is what the {{Distinguish}} hatnote produces. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a corresponding encyclopedia article doesn't exist doesn't mean there doesn't have to be a template/redirect. If there is no content whatsoever on the topic or if the intended meanings are too numerous for us to identify an appropriate target than we absolutely should not have a redirect. "Not to be confused" is an extremely common phrase that appears in over 18,000 articles without need for explanation. Many common dictionary words and common phrases don't have encyclopedic entries and don't make for good redirects even if they are so common that we think readers may occasionally search for them. As for the hatnote lingo, the vast majority of readers are not attuned to wiki-jargon which makes it a very poor basis generally for deciding redirect behavior. And {{Distinguish}} aka {{Confuse}} is not even the hatnote used to resolve cases of potential word-sense disambiguation so making this connection is an odd leap even for those in the know. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lunamann and Cyber. At least in terms of Wikipedia usage "Not to be confused (with)" as a phrase is used in the sense of disambiguation, and because disambiguation is redirected there it makes sense for this phrase to lead there. Furthermore, from there there's a hatnote to the corresponding Wikipedia policy. It's simple and straightforward enough to keep the redirect. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 04:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lunamann, Cyber and Frank. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator follow-up: I meant to chime in sooner, but here I am now, about a week or so late. The comments stating this redirect is proper due to it referring to what this phrase might mean within Wikipedia is totally meta to Wikipedia. What I mean by that is there is no expectation that the average reader who is searching this term is intending to find the current target. My nomination statement is to illustrate. This phrase could refer to something else, which illustrates it as ambiguous. In other words, if this redirect was titled "Wikipedia:Not to be confused", I could validate it existing and targeting something within the "Wikipedia:" namespace, but the same expectation cannot be set in the article space as there are other encyclopedic concepts which this phrase could refer. In addition, this phrase without the word "with" at the end is ambiguous; if the word "with" or "for" were added to the end of this phrase, I would've never started this discussion, but as it stands, this redirect is missing one of those key words at the end. Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016/0280(COD)

2016/0280(COD) → Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Looking through the article, it seems unclear how this redirect is a likely or helpful redirect, given that "0280" and "COD" seem to be mentioned now there in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{keep}} This is the code of the legislative procedure, which was and is linked in the article. Nemo 08:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Nemo. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 15:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When this redirect was created in 2018, the directive was a draft, and was mentioned as such. Now, it is confusing why a 2019 directive is referred to as 2016. Delete - without mention, these are just some numbers and letters with a burden of verification. No reason to use draft version codes. I unpiped it from PhotoDNA. Jay 💬 05:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good offices

Good offices → United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target, the association with Cyprus is certainly not the primary one. I think the main meaning for this term is the diplomatic one used in e.g. Foreign relations of Switzerland#Good offices, but the term isn't unique to Switzerland, making that a poor target. We also have United_Nations_Commission_for_Indonesia#Council's_Committee_of_Good_Offices, United Nations Good Offices Mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and several other similar articles. Could conceivably be a XNR to wikt:good offices? Rusalkii (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a disambig page would fit this? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to enable Search to work uninhibited. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikt:good offices? Disambiguate? Or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Type-67

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Witch Beam

Witch Beam → Unpacking (video game) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Witch Beam is a video game studio that has developed at least two notable games (Unpacking and Assault Android Cactus). Two months ago, a redirect was created to one of those games, but a redirect here implies that the studio is only known in the context of the one game. I filled out the redirect with a short stub and was reverted by the redirect's creator. We should either have an article on the studio or a redlink with no prejudice against article creation, since there is more than one potential redirection target. Chubbles (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much independent coverage around the studio itself that are not separate from its games, and one game is more well known than the other with their articles reflecting that. From what can be seen at the first expansion edit at the page, there just isn't much for an article to be needed. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A user searching for Witch Beam will be redirected to Unpacking with no ability to ascertain that Assault Android Cactus is related to the search, despite the fact that we have content about the latter game as well. This is not good from an information-seeking standpoint. Chubbles (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No obvious primary topic. Current redirect may be WP:SURPRISE and is therefore unhelpful. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bulking cycle

Bulking cycle → Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids#Steroid cycle (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. At best, current target seems too specific. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting cycle

Cutting cycle → Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids#Steroid cycle (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target, most uses relate to forestry rather than steroids. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anasteroids

Anasteroids → Anabolic steroid (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Does not seem to be an abbreviation in common use, and the possibility exists for confusion with asteroids. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the singular anasteroid does not exist. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - not an existing term Drew Stanley (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza massacre

Gaza massacre → Casualties of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Gaza Massacre → Casualties of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 16 § Gaza massacre – retarget

Retarget to Gaza war or Israeli invasion of Gaza --MikutoH ^talk! 03:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Gaza war to match Gaza Massacre (2008)Gaza Massacre (2008) → Gaza War (2008–2009), Gaza massacre (2012)Gaza massacre (2012) → 2012 Gaza War, and Gaza massacre (2014)Gaza massacre (2014) → 2014 Gaza War Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I bundled Gaza Massacre Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Gaza war per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Gaza War (2008–2009) as alternative name in boldface, and/or otherwise create disambiguation page for this term. There is no mention of "Gaza massacre" in the Gaza war article like there is for the 2008-2009 war, so oppose this. For context the following "Gaza massacre" redirects include; Gaza Massacre (2008), 2010 Gaza massacre, Gaza massacre (2012), and Gaza massacre (2014), thus there is a logic to a disambiguation page that includes not only the war articles but also outliers such as 2010 Gaza flotilla raid. Courtesy ping to editors above. CNC (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steroids in High School Athletics

Steroids in High School Athletics → Anabolic steroid (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Steroids in High School Athletics

Redirect from an old WP:BLAR not discussed at target or at amateur sports. Article content in page history would have no chance of being kept at Afd, so delete here per WP:SNOWBALL, but if someone insists upon restoring the article and sending to Afd, I wouldn't object. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's relevant content in the second paragraph of Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids#Sports. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids#Sports per Tavix. Left guide (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caerussalem

Caerussalem → Jerusalem (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Jerusalem in Middle Welsh - no particular affinity I can see / WP:FORRED. Zzz plant (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:FORRED. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juice monkey

Juice monkey → Anabolic steroid (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Juice Monkey → Anabolic steroid (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Is slang for a user of anabolic steroids, but not mentioned at target. Soft redirect to Wikitionary, add sourced mention to target, or delete? Mdewman6 (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The slang usage is easily found online (in unreliable sources per my cursory search) and appears to be the main meaning although there are other uses including a juice company and a song mentioned at Jeff Freundlich. The slang term doesn't appear especially notable and the target article currently does not discuss other slang terms. Both redirects have had barely any views in the last decade: 109 and 249, respectively. Juice Monkey has ≈2.2x as many hits which *maybe* is accounted for by the existence of a few non-steroid-related entities with this proper name. Forcing a description into Anabolic steroid won't improve the target article and is likely undue. A wiktionary redirect seems unnecessary given the lack of traffic to either redirect. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Myceteae Drew Stanley (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules

Template:Uw-ablock

Template:Uw-ablock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-ipevadeblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Now that temporary accounts have replaced IP editing, anonymous users no longer receive notifications for IP talk page messages (I've tested it myself), as well as can't (easily) access their IP talk pages anymore. The "Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked ..." templates have only been used on user talk pages of IPs and never as something to be put into the block reason, thus I don't see why these templates would still be useful. (Also potentially applies to the "anon=yes/no" parameter of the rest of the block templates.) — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not "never"; there's ten blocks I can find with one or the other of these templates as the reason. All expired, at least. —Cryptic 15:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing to delete these, update these, etc? Even though they are subst'd, I am not sure deletion is necessary. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Distribution of languages in the world

Template:Distribution of languages in the world (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is linked to from two image captions (but not transcluded anywhere), one in Language#Language families of the world and the other in Human#Language. Templates should not be treated as content pages, as among other things, maintenance of unsourced content is not preformed there and these pages don't show up in regular searches. If the template's content is useful, then convert it to an article at Distribution of languages in the world. If it isn't then delete. Gonnym (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CF/April 2008 peer reviews

Template:CF/April 2008 peer reviews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CF/April 2009 peer reviews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CF/April 2010 peer reviews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CF/April 2011 peer reviews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CF/April 2012 peer reviews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CF/April 2013 peer reviews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CF/April 2014 peer reviews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CF/August 2008 peer reviews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Now unused. Usages replaced with {{Peer review entry}}. Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PulitzerPrize Music Finalists 1980–1990

Template:PulitzerPrize Music Finalists 1980–1990 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:PulitzerPrize Music Finalists 1991–2000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:PulitzerPrize Music Finalists 2001–2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:PulitzerPrize Music Finalists 2011–2020 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-winners. WP:NENAN. Navigation between non-winners of an award is not useful nor an established usage for navboxes. Not winning an award is not a well-defining grouping. Οἶδα (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nom here. We should limit the award templates to winners of the award. Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MO Constantine squad

Template:MO Constantine squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another Algerian club empty/abandoned template. Svartner (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

Deletion review

[:2-1] "欧亚人文研究(中俄文)". chn.oversea.cnki.net. Retrieved 2025-10-20.

[2] "《欧亚人文研究（中俄文）》". CQVIP.

[3] "国家哲学社会科学文献中心". www.ncpssd.cn. Retrieved 2025-10-20.

[1]

[2]

[3]

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creating articles Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates

Speedy deletion candidates

Articles

Files

Categories

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Fictional bison

Category:Bison on coins

Category:Bison hunting

Category:Abdominal wall defects

Category:Taxa named by Wu Hsien-Wen

Category:Fictional political parties

Category:Fathers of Medicare

Category:May 2023 crimes in Oceania

Category:Massacres in Albania by communist regime

Category:The Completionist

Category:Xn

Category:Peoples of the Caucasus

Category:Argentine mammalogists

Category:15th century in Bavaria

Category:Albanian soldiers

Category:Swiss ichthyologists

Category:Palestinian Holocaust deniers

Category:Ships involved in Operation Crossroads

Category:Rivers with fish ladders

Redirects

Transpeptidation

Schmear

Shameena Riaz

Liu Siya

Ruqayya Salem

Robyn McAlpine

C Lalramsanga

Suryaksh Rawat

BFDI drafts

Dawans

Post-cycle therapy

Wikipedia:Pages for deletion and similar titles

Not to be confused

2016/0280(COD)

Good offices

Type-67

Witch Beam