User:Sun Creator/AFD


User page	Talk Page	To Do List	INFO	AFD	Control Panel	More

Checkuser pages
Requests: Unlisted • IP check • On hold Archives: Main • Older • IP checks • Unsorted
Clerk pages
Clerk Overview • Noticeboard • Procedures
Shortcut
This page can be quickly accessed through: WP:RFCU/C/P

Google books Wikipedia article traffic statistics Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL WP:N WP:CLS WP:LIST WP:RS

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< December 10	December 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

List of Superstore characters

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

Almost all of the citations in this article are primary. Only four non-primary sources are used out of 92. Any useful information can be moved to the series article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Loras College

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

Reason Mamamiaitalianopizza (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC) This article is not important enough for wikipedia, with it having not enough citations and verification on it's facts. (most of the citations are primary source)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, Religion, Christianity, United States of America, and Iowa. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 05:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 December 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

2025 UC11

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

This fails WP:NASTRO, with no indication that the subject is notable. A lot of the article deals with topics that are only tangentially related to the subject. Some of that material may work well elsewhere, like in our articles about discovery methods, but it's superfluous here. There are a lot of references, but not a single one of them meets the requirements set forth by NASTRO (they're all database entries, or about different objects, or about something else entirely). Searches on Google Scholar and ADS only produce the discovery announcement by the MPC, which does not indicate notability (every Near Earth asteroid gets one). As far as I can tell, there are zero news reports about the object in reliable sources (watchers.news mentions it -- despite the name, this isn't really a news website; it puts out articles about every close approach that happens, making it little more than a close approach database). There are zero studies that even mention it, let alone establish that it's notable. Renerpho (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

News reports and publications are forthcoming. The article is dealing with NASA Minor Planet Center and NASA JPL, both of which require weeks or months of approvals for public press releases. Extra citations may be added soon. Russ504 (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 04:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Maria Caruso

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

This subject does not enjoy WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:ANYBIO. At nomination, all refs appear to be AI hallucinations (all 404s without archives). Previous revisions had only apparent WP:PRIMARY and was promotional in nature. JFHJr (㊟) 04:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Arts, and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 04:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Aaron Newman

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

While at first glance he appears to have done some notable things, they are attributed mostly to local sources. His most notable achievement would have been going to challenger deep, but it's hard to find next to any coverage regarding the event, only passing mentions in news organizations quoting him for another reason. His best association in the media is being an investor in OceanGate and defending Stockton Rush. Not much else I can find. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Spaceflight, United States of America, and New York. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

List of battles fought in Indiana

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

An essentially unreferenced article that goes against the WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN guideline. Nominations of other articles like this, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles fought in South Dakota, have resulted in deletion. toweli (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, United States of America, and Indiana. toweli (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep A Wikiproject style guideline is not a Wikipedia notability guideline. Moreover, that section of MILMOS refers to categorization, not what is permitted in articles, and I don't think the debates it is concerned with are particularly salient for US states. Anyway, there's still Category:Battles in the United States by state. This seems to be a perfectly valid and informational navigational list. Reywas92^Talk 02:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom and the South Dakota verdict. What applies to categories applies to lists of this sort. Also, there was no Indiana at the time of half the battles listed. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Speedy keep as the nominator does not provide a policy-based rationale for deletion. Categories =/= lists. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep Valid navigational and information list. Enough things on the list have their own articles linked to, its a valid list. Dream Focus 22:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Katrina Johnson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Katrina Johnson

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

The existing sources used on the page are either dead links or do not seem like the most quality, reliable sources. I asked for help with finding more sources on this page back in January and it seems like no one else was able to find anymore. I just did a search myself and was unable to find sources. Therefore, this page fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep: The references seem to be adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Is there a specific number threshold that a page needs to be considered "adequate"? I have seen pages be deleted for having many more RSes from much better sources (New York Times, BBC, etc.). Just curious if there is a certain numerical threshold and if the quality of the sources factor in. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Delete I can't find any reliable sources on Google, just social media. She was interviewed on a local Fox TV channel. She is name-checked in something called "Complex." I can't find the Celebuzz article, but by the title it's mainly about someone else. It is hard to search for her because her name is common. In fact, the CanvasRebel article is not her. None of these are stellar sources. Lamona (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Had only one notable role, so fails WP:NACTRESS. The coverage here is of a tabloid nature as well (ie allegations of abuse on a TV set). It's not even about her work on TV but stuff that allegedly happened off camera. The coverage is not strong, and I would say fails WP:NOTTABLOID. I'd think we would need something more substantial of higher quality to count as WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Division 2 Norra

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT/WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Sweden. 4meter4 (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Swedish football division 2 as possible search term. Giant Snowman 21:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep Container page for a historical second division league, these seasons all have articles, see 1932–33 Swedish football division 2 and we don't have a list of champions anywhere else as far as I can tell so it's not duplicative. See [1]. I can't access historical Swedish newspapers but I'm certain this would have at least some coverage there. SportingFlyer T·C 11:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep – Relevant for historical purposes, considering that these are tournaments from the 1930s and 40s. As SportingFlyer mentioned, coverage exists in local newspapers. Svartner (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
I would create an article for Division 2 as a second tier (1928–1986, see sv:Division 2 i fotboll för herrar (1928–1986)), they were 2, 3, or 4 different groups during different time intervals and perhaps include Division 1 as a second tier (1987–1999) as the name change was more of a technicality, the format was exactly the same from 1986 to 1987. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
For the whole Divison 2, some coverage on changes of the league structure [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Examples of coverage of the sport before and in the end of each season: [7], [8]. Also covered in the Årets fotboll series. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment. I note that the keep votes are not policy based. There are still zero sources in evidence. The sourcing problems fail WP:NSPORT and WP:ORG. This is a league so it does in fact have to pass WP:ORGCRIT. I request that the closer consider policy in their close and weigh the strength of the arguments. We don't keep articles on organizations without sourcing under policy.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
I've never heard of leagues needing to pass WP:ORGCRIT and Kaffet i halsen clearly provided sources showing this league was significantly covered. The current format of the article is almost certainly not the best way to present this information, but there's absolutely no need for this to be deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 10:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Of course they do. Sports teams are organizations. They aren't exempt from that guideline. They have to pass ORG the same way non-profits, schools, businesses, etc. have to pass that guideline. Sports teams are in many cases also businesses with investors, corporate backers, etc. Many teams, even non-profit ones, have separate for-profit businesses for merchandise sales. There is definitely financial interests tied up into sports; especially when we get into professional sports with paid athletes.4meter4 (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You should actually read WP:NORG. SportingFlyer T·C 15:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Division 1 Västra

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT/WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Sweden. 4meter4 (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Ettan Fotboll as possible search term. Giant Snowman 21:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep as per my comments in the other AfD - this was a short lived but stand-alone second division in the Swedish leagues, though it would probably be better merged with the other regional leagues comprising the second division as it's always going to be a stub. Some of the references in 1991 in Swedish football would clearly cover this league. SportingFlyer T·C 12:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Ettan Fotboll#Second tier – The content is a duplicated fork, the list of champions is already in the main article. Svartner (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
@Svartner: that is not the case, it just lists promoted teams. If we merged the champions in that would be acceptable to me. SportingFlyer T·C 18:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a merge as suggested per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Instead of merging to Ettan Fotboll, I would split all pre-2006 content from the current third-tier Ettan Fotboll and create an article for Division 1 as a second tier (1987–1999, see sv:Division 1 i fotboll för herrar (1987–1999)) and perhaps combine it with the Division 2 as a second tier (1928–1986) as the name change was more of a technicality, the format was exactly the same. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
That seems like the best solution. This probably doesn't need a stand alone article, but we shouldn't lose the information. SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedily deleted per G11. (non-admin closure) I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 05:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Corner Travel Index

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant independent sources, also reads like LLM with similarly sized paragraphs and Over-Confident Analysis. r f q i i ^talk! 04:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy deletion under WP:G15 r f q i i ^talk! 04:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

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.

Don Leopardo

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

Fails WP:NALBUM/WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Bersuit Vergarabat#Discography – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Currier Island

AfDs for this article:

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

The only coverage of the subject that I was able to find was an article in The National (Abu Dhabi) ([9]) and a few sentences in the newspaper Sud Ouest ([10] page 5). Perhaps it could be redirected to World Beach Ultimate Championships. The previous nomination in 2006 resulted in deletion. toweli (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Sports. toweli (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Here's a list of links discussing this.

Kid-friendly overview of Currier Island as a fictional Ultimate nation. https://kids.kiddle.co/Currier_Island

Canadian Ultimate page describing Currier Island teams at WCBU. https://www.canadianultimate.com/en_ca/p/wcbu-currier-island-teams

BULA blog hub, including posts about Currier Island and eligibility manuals. https://beachultimate.org/blog/

Reddit post telling “The Story of Currier Island.” https://www.reddit.com/r/ultimate/comments/2xdnup/the_story_of_currier_island_the_story_of_how_a/

This Reddit linked to the blog archived below https://web.archive.org/web/20170126093241/http://www.gethorizontal.com/the-story-of-currier-island/

Feature article about Currier Island at WCBU 2015 in Dubai. https://www.thenationalnews.com/sport/have-frisbee-willing-to-play-currier-island-team-brings-global-appeal-to-world-championship-of-beach-ultimate-1.26768

India Ultimate news page including notes on Currier Island at AOBUC 2019. https://indiaultimate.org/en_in/news

BULA WCBU scores site listing Currier Island results. https://beachultimate.org/wcbuscores/

WFDF report and final standings for WCBU 2011 including Currier Island. https://wfdf.sport/2011/11/2011-world-championships-beach-ultimate/

WGGMBUCC page listing participating teams including Currier Island. https://wggmbucc.org/tournament/participating-teams/

Facebook group post mentioning Currier Island at world beach ultimate championships. https://www.facebook.com/groups/364928930277026/posts/24415637868112796/

Currier Island Players and Friends Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/currierislandwcbu2017/

Facebook recruiting post for Currier Island teams at European/Beach events. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1862475287400712/posts/2122111181437120/

Currier Island account on X (Twitter). https://x.com/CurrierIsland

Currier Island Instagram account. https://www.instagram.com/currier_island/

YouTube: Currier Island vs West Coast game (WGGMBUCC). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaPMySSKb4c

YouTube: Currier Island at WCBU 2017 opening ceremony. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6ac_RG1sBU

Below are links to various ultimate rule lists, which might include references, but I haven't reviewed them in depth.

WFDF National Team Player Eligibility Regulations (Ultimate Worlds). https://euf.efdf.org/docs/WFDF_National_Team_Player_Eligibility_Regulations_for_WFDF_Ultimate_Worlds_Events.pdf

uRules.org summary of WFDF national-team eligibility appendix. https://urules.org/appendix-d.html

WFDF Rules of Ultimate 2021–2024 Appendix (includes eligibility context). https://rules.wfdf.sport/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/WFDF-Rules-of-Ultimate-2021-2024-Appendix-v3.pdf

WFDF Rulebook Article I – General (national team definitions). https://wfdf.sport/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/WFDFRulebook_Article_I_General.pdf

EUF Ultimate eligibility rules (adapted from WFDF). https://www.ultimatefederation.eu/ultimate-eligibility-rules/

Hope this is enough :) Jazi Zilber (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@YechezkelZilber nearly all of these source are unreliable or PRIMARY sources. Most of these do not actually help with showcasing article notability independently of the overall competition, especially since the few reliable sources are just score statistics. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

it is notable, I would say. And the links I provided showcased this.

"Wikipedia approved sources" are generally not a measure of reality, but a helpful technical rule for vetting sources. Those aren't the same. Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

They are, in fact, a measure of how we determine what should get an article, however. We have the reliable sources noticeboard for a reason, and reliable sources are needed for an article to pass the Wikipedia:GNG. Please review relevant sourcing guidelines. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Edited and fixed the list above Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete presently. Recommend anyone wanting it saved look at WP:HEY or strongly consider sending to userspace to build out and up properly for Articles for Creation. It'll save you a few later headaches. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Stephanie Nihon

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

The notability concerns from the previous AfD still appear to be relevant. Pinging Timtrent. Janhrach (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Visual arts, Fashion, and Bahamas. Janhrach (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment: It took me a moment to spot the link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie K. Nihon, thank you, nom, for linking it. The prior AfD was closed after an admin had G5'd the previous article. I may be back with a !vote after I have examined the article. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I am on the fence. There is a claim to notability in https://www.thenassauguardian.com/lifestyles/goombay-kids-snags-cannes-film-festival-wins-stephanie-k-nihon-show-creator-wins-best-producer/article_a56e323f-b2aa-51f1-be6d-9652766b4129.html which may be sufficient. However, the remainder of the article is rammed full of WP:BOMBARDed churnalism of regurgitated PR pieces. If kept it needs to be rendered down to a barebones sub, pending a rebuild. Noting that AfD is not cleanup, it usually performs very well at that if an article is susceptible to being cleaned, 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Weak Delete Bizarrely, there are a large number of weird promotional articles in obscure publications about Nihon, many of which are not impartial or written independently of the subject - "churnalism", as Timtrent describes above. With this said, I do think this article about her from Elle (magazine) in conjunction with the Nassau Guardian would be enough to pass WP:SIGCOV in ordinary circumstances. However, the broader picture context is clearly that there are a lot of paid promotional articles about this person being generated online, and the Elle Canada article has that disclaimer at the bottom. With that in mind, lean delete. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 05:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep The article relies only on independent, reliable secondary sources. The existence of unrelated paid or PR press online does not negate the fact that the subject has received significant independent coverage, and only those reliable sources were used. Per WP:GNG notability is determined by the presence of in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources, not by whether promotional material exists elsewhere on the internet.

In addition, the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability for creative professionals (WP:CREATIVE). Criteria 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). She is the creator of Goombay Kids, a nationally recognized Bahamian children’s TV series that has received sustained coverage in multiple independent news outlets and reportedly has had a notable cultural impact within the Bahamas as per the sources. Creating a widely covered, award recognized, and nationally broadcast series satisfies the standard for significant creative contribution under WP:CREATIVE.

Looking at policy, the presence of reliable independent sources demonstrating impact and recognition is what matters for notability. Those sources are already reflected in the article. Therefore the concern about paid press none of which is used here should not outweigh substantial independent coverage that meets GNG. Adnankhanakay (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep should satisfy WP:FILMMAKER as per above vote and Notability as per The Nassau Guardian piece and more by the same newspaper. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 13:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Iran Historical Sovereignty over the Tunbs and BuMusa Islands

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

Does not meet notability Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, Politics, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Unsure of the quality of the sources used now in the article, I don't find any sourcing that even talks about this concept, let alone a book about it. Lack of any kind of sourcing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment I’m old enough to remember that rejecting Iran’s claim to the Tumbs and BuMusa was one of the reasons Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 with support from the UAE, so the underlying question of sovereignty is certainly notable and we even have an article, Seizure of Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs. Whether this book is notable or not I’m not sure, but will search in Farsi. Mccapra (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep. The Farsi Wikipedia article has three sources that I think demonstrate notability, 1, 2 and 3. In addition I’ve found 4 and 5. It looks to me as though the book is cited in journal articles but I’m not up to searching to verify that in Farsi. Searching is fairly hard because the sovereignty over these islands appears to be a constant obsession of the Iranian regime, and there is so much written about it. Mccapra (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep - the article can be expanded with other sources. Moondragon21 (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete - we are not RevanchiPedia. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete Among the five sources presented above, the first is a news report about the release of the book, not a review. The second one mentions the book as a part of a larger story and includes quotes from the author. I cannot access the third source. The fourth redirects me to Instagram. The fifth is a review from some think tank, maybe it is reliable, but it is definitely not enough to base notability on. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

not sure what happened to the third source I found, but the fourth is to Isna, not instagram. It’s an official Iranian news agency. Mccapra (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

When I click on it I get to https://www.instagram.com/isna.news/. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

List of wars involving Mongolia

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

WP:TNT, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NLIST. Wars fought by ancient Xianbei tribes bear no relation to "wars involving Mongolia"; neither do battles fought by the Kalmyk Khanate, Ilkhanate, Golden Horde, or the Khoshut Khanate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Lists, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Wait so it's by geographically Mongolian like the nations based on modern day Mongolian lands and not by ethnicity which includes nations like Kalmyk Khanate or the Khoshut Khanate, or the Succesor state of Mongol Empire which is Golden Horde and the Ilkhanate? HorseBro the hemionus (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Possibly salvage by restricting to separate lists for the Mongol Empire and its successor states only? Also delete individual battles, raids, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep Just discuss what should be included. Category:Military history of Mongolia has a subcategory Category:Military history of the Mongol Empire which includes Category:Battles involving the Mongol Empire and Category:Sieges involving the Mongol Empire, these could easily fill a list titled List of wars involving the Mongol Empire. There is a category for Category:Wars involving Mongolia for the different countries called that at times, which could perhaps be a different list. Dream Focus 22:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Strong Keep unnecessary nomination, just remove things that are irrelevant

Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Higashi-Kakogawa

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

Unsourced since 2004. As a section of Kakogawa City, Higashi-Kakogawa does not fall under WP:GEOLAND. It must demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. I redirected this to Kakogawa City per WP:BURDEN and WP:NOPAGE but it was contested and the website of the city was added as a "source". This however is not independent of the city and is not usable for notability. Without indpendent sources this fails WP:GNG, and per WP:NOPAGE this would be better covered anyway in context in the article on the city rather than as a stand alone page.4meter4 (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 16:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Merge to Kakogawa, Hyōgo I looked at the corresponding article in Japanese Wikipedia, and I am not convinced that the topic is notable enough for a separate article. The area is real so it certainly deserves some mention but probably not as an independent article. -- Taku (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete Notability hasn't been demonstrated, and there is no sourced content to merge. No issue with recreation if someone provides sources. SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Samantha Fulnecky essay controversy

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}}.

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

WP:NOTNEWS - no indicaiton of sustained covereage in a whole load on manufactured outrage from both sides. ~2025-38159-71 (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Completed nomination for TA, no opinion at this time. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Per WP:NOTNEWS Remikipedia (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Weak keep I agree this is a dumb thing to be outraged over, but that doesn't determine if we keep or delete an article. For better or worse, there is a lot of national and international coverage, enough to indicate the topic is notable. If it dies down without any additional coverage, I think the decision to keep or possibly merge could be considered, but I don't see a good merge target. If Fulnecky can parlay this "controversy" into a career on the right-wing outrage circuit, I think it would end up getting merged into her bio, but that is speculation. (t · c) buIdhe 15:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
If this continues to get coverage, I could see the 'Education' section of the Transgender rights movement page being a possible merge target. There are some good points on why this may not be appropriate for its own article after reviewing GNG/SNG criteria, but I do not believe that this information has no value as it applies to larger movements. At any rate, a keep for now decision lets us submit a more informed AfD later. I think that would be the best route forward for this article. Everdread (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies, Education, Religion, and Oklahoma. jolielover♥talk 16:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Discrimination. jolielover♥talk 16:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep Notability per coverage is clearly sustained. Additionally, I’d like to note that this user has been povpushing and edit warring (four reverts against two editors) on Girlguiding based on a stated belief that allowing trans girls to be girlscouts is not sensible,[11] while displaying a *very* thorough understanding of wiki policies, procedures, and informal etiquette entirely inconsistent with a temp account.[12] Snokalok (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
It's way too early to conclude that coverage is "clearly sustained"; the incident in question happened less than a week ago. Also, the nominator's activity on other articles is unrelated to whether this article is sufficiently notable. Andrew11374265 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Well, combined with the fact that they sockpuppeted this thread to increase the delete count, it suggests that this AfD was not filed in good faith. Snokalok (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Maybe the TA wasn't in good faith, but this didn't strike me as something that was going to have lasting notability, so I was willing to copy it over. I'm not convinced it's a delete, but neither am I sure it's worth keeping. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep; clearly notable on its own. The fact that TPUSA is backing it will likely keep it relevant until at least the end of the year, and possibly beyond that. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 16:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I think this article is worth keeping, at least until coverage of the topic dies down. I know I found this article helpful enough when I learned of the topic today that I'm sure it will help others. Fognar777 (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)— Fognar777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Politics. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep/wait, this seems to have plenty of coverage for this point in the WP:NEVENT cycle. If this ends up being falling off the face of the earth in a few weeks, it could feasibly be renominated. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
It's not even two weeks ago, that's the news cycle reporting on news. We'll need a bit more sustained coverage, over a longer time period. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete obvious case of WP:NOTNEWS.~2025-38213-51 (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC) Sock strike, same small range as ~2025-38159-71. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete as of the time I write this. Regardless of the ultimate result of this AfD, while it's ongoing the article is going to stay up for at least several days. During that time, coverage of the event could rise to a level where I'd be satisfied with calling it "sustained"; however, at the moment, I don't believe it meets the WP:NOTNEWS standard. (Politicians, even those at the highest levels of the US government, as well as groups like TPUSA complain about things all the time. Some publications, in turn, summarize and/or opine on those complaints. It is my view that in this day and age, that is not sufficient to warrant an entire article for every such instance.) Andrew11374265 (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and LGBTQ+ studies. Bridget (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
@Bridget, we had those already, those pages now have two entries on this afd. It may not matter that much, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Duplicates have been removed. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep! My bad. Bridget (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete: I feel like this will be NOTNEWS in six months. It's just people getting upset, with a transgender person involved. Had the instructor not been transgender, this wouldn't be news. Why is a student upset over getting zero on a paper newsworthy? This happens all the time in the world of education; we remove the "transgender", there isn't a story here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
~~@Oaktree b, you currently have two bolded delete !votes on this AFD. Please strike one. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)~~

I'm seeing things! Disregard my previous message. Sorry! Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment: "Radical left" isn't news-worthy. It's a dog whistle. Universities are by nature there to provoke thought and debate. This would be similar to a student claiming their black instructor was *insert words here* if this was earlier in the Century. This is even tagged under "transgender topics" here in Wiki; this would be more suitable under an "education in the USA" tag. The focus is on the transgender individual, not the essay. This is difficult to keep NPOV in the first place and this isn't really about a transgender individual, it's about a person's reaction to someone else who's different than they are and how they feel superior to them as a result. Frankly every time someone cries "radical left" or gets mad at a transgender person, that's the focus of the news. I don't think every time someone gets involved in a transphobia incident, that it gets an article. Perhaps TOOSOON at this point, we don't even know what the results are. The prof is "on leave" and the student gets their 15 minutes of fame. If there is some sort of lasting consequence, then we could have an article; does the prof get sued and it goes to the Supreme Court, is there some sort of physical violence involved and people get hurt/die, etc. Until then, this isn't really notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
The current delete rationales, which more or less boil down to I don't think this will be notable yet would seem like a clear instance of WP:RAPID, I don't see a compelling reason to entertain this right now. If this won't be notable in 6 months, the logical time to discuss this would be in 6 months, not now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Okay, yeah, no, I've looked into my crystal ball and it tells me that we should discuss this in 6 months if anyone still wants to. If y'all want to create some more explicit rules on exactly what to do in the early months after an event, then feel free to go do that. On our current guidelines, keep. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

NOTNEWS, TOOSOON, take your pick. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm new here but this makes sense to me- why not set a soft deadline to determine notability? TrumanSwango (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep: Wait for now - this occurred only a week or so ago and that's not enough time (WP:RAPID) to develop any sustained coverage. It can be re-nominated in the future if there's no lasting/sustained coverage, but for now there's enough sources to work with and it's too soon to delete per WP:LASTING. HurricaneZeta^C 21:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Quite sad that stuff like this even reaches article status on Wikipedia nowadays- utter WP:NOTNEWS, and the majority of the sources are current-events commentary articles, which are not really representative of "sustained coverage". A university student writing a transphobic essay and proceeding to be angry over receiving a bad grade from her professor is not notable under any circumstance at all ever, period. Electricmemory (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Draftify — as of now, this isn’t notable enough. It’s manufactured outrage from both sides, and it’s more than likely going to be forgotten within a week or two. Draft it for now, see if it has larger coverage, then publish it if it does. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 23:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep 1) WP:NOTNEWS is for routine coverage, which this is not. When was the last time a US university TA was fired for what appears to have been blatant religious discrimination? 2) reverse-CRYSTAL problem, assuming that this won't be referenced in the future. It's impossible to plausibly say "no sustained coverage" when an event has just happened without assuming that something will die after a news cycle or two. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
"Blatant religious discrimination"? She assigned an essay reviewing recent reading, the student handed in an essay reviewing her views of the Bible. She didn't do the assignment, and another teacher backed the original grade up. Then they suspended the teacher anyway. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Exactly. Most people seem to have the idea in their heads that if a teacher is suspended/fired it must've been for a valid reason. This was not so. Electricmemory (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Normally, putting name to paper and turning in a non-plagiarized essay garners some points, even if failing to address the original question, wouldn't you both agree? Or have either of you actually graded college level work? I have. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Let's keep this discussion about whether this article should be on Wikipedia. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Draftify as a valid alternative to deletion given that there is coverage, but it is too soon to determine any potential long-term significance. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Adding on to my initial !vote to say that I'd also be open to a merge if a suitable target is found. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep. The essay deserved a failing grade (maybe not a 0), but conservatives, including politicians are calling for terminations and investigations, [13] so WP:SUSTAINED will likely be met, especially since it has already made the NYT before all of that happened. WP:RAPID seems to apply and it would be best to revisit in a few weeks. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep - this case has received a lot of media coverage. Moondragon21 (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep: Nothing routine about a college pre-med junior getting a TA placed on administrative leave, receiving a Fox News spotlight, and "earning" a participation certificate from the Oklahoma House of Representatives...all over bombing an essay for not following instructions. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep - the nature of the reporting and the amount of media coverage reasonably satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements in my opinion. Trey Wainman (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Insubstantial coverage stemming from the nowadays typical right-wing media ragebait cycle. If it turns into something with more substance like the Riley Gaines case then sure, but I do not think it is at that level yet. Curbon7 (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete bunch of primary source media reports based on outrage as opposed to any long-term significance. Secondary sources addressing the impact of this on religious freedom and university degrees would make this merit an article but none of that seems to exist currently. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep, for now. In today's weird and truly awful political climate, having pop-up articles like this one are a way to direct and consolidate traffic from interested editors and readers. We can decide down the road whether the subject has true long-term notability... remember, WP:NORUSH. The fact is that people are visiting this page, and I don't see a better article or subheading to send them to, nor can I advocate sending them to a draft article. As a worst-case scenario, we are collecting sources. TNstingray (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS. People are already forgetting about this. Sceptre (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete, much per Curbon above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep, I say keep, but I am not sure how you want to organize such matters. It seems to be about a student who is a christian and expressed her POV and did not do the homework so she ended up with a 0. She complained to this and that and eventually politicians got involved who expressed their religious views. It is a classic religion vs LGBT thing that happens in the USA. I think it should be documented in some form for future generations to remember the 20 th and 21 th century. It is what it is. This is how life is in 2025. Vmelkon (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep. News sources say its turning into a discrimination lawsuit, and given her mother is said to be a lawyer, then given the political publicity already at early stage, this isn't just another tiny storm in a teacup. Sjl197 (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOTNEWS Article suffers from recentism, this is just a news story that is being pumped for the time being and won't even be remembered in a few months' time. Mgasparin (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Draftify or Delete - WP:NOTNEWS and as an event, not (yet) WP:SUSTAINED. The lasting significance of this is not established. It looks like a storm in a teacup owing to political nonsense. As and when it gets written about because of some actual permanent impact, the page can be written. Will that happen in the time it can staye in draft? Unlikely, I'd say, as there is nothing much to see here. However it is possible, owing to the political involvement, so draftify is a suitable WP:ATD, but failing that this should be deleted. In particular WP:NOPAGE pertanins. This is something that would get a sentence or two in a larger article about, say, the politicisation of academia or articles on culture wars etc. It is not an encyclopaedic subject in its own right. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete, per WP:TOOSOON. Cyb3rstarz (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Level of protests and (inter)national coverage reach level of news.Naraht (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Yomiko Readman

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

Starting this AfD after a bold WP:BLAR on my part, which was reverted by User:Historyday01.

This character does not appear to be independently notable. I could not find any useful sources about her with a WP:BEFORE, and, looking at the sources already cited, none of them appear to satisfy either WP:SIGCOV nor the recommendations outlined at WP:NFCHAR. Most of them are either WP:PRSOURCEs or else reviews of the series in general which only mention Yomiko in passing. A couple are listicles, and a couple others are books which, although I cannot access their full text, mostly only seem to briefly mention Yomiko.

The majority of the article is plot summary, and no real-world details about her character's development or reception is included. Even if there were any, I see no compelling reason why any such details could not be covered sufficiently at the articles about the series and the various entries in its media franchise. Such details would not necessarily show that the character deserves a standalone article. If there are any sources which prove the character to be independently notable, they should certainly be added (and I will be happy to withdraw my nomination if that is shown to be the case), but I have not found any. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Anime and manga. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Weak keep. I feel that this AfD is wrongheaded, as there could have been an effort to gather sources first, then a further determination at that time. All the issues you describe could be fixed through editing, rather than going through this process. Here is what I just added to the reception section:

Her character was received positively. Zuleika of Fandom called her a "typical glasses-wearing, book-infatuated klutz" and noted her obsession "with books," listing her among characters in other classic anime OVAs.^[1] Christopher Bolton, a Japanese and comparative literature scholar, noted that in the Read or Die OVA, her book obsession is treated as an "unhealthy preoccupation" distancing her from real life, with a key theme being her realization, gradually, that real relationships, and real people, are "more important than literature."^[2] Readman's character influenced Mei in Overwatch, at the suggestion of equipment producer Ben Zhang, and noted by animator David Gibson.^[3] Erica Victoria Espejo, a well-known anime cosplayer and author, noted she wore a cosplay of Readman to a convention, was praised for embodying "the essence" of the character, and then went on to cosplay as Readman again following this.^[4]

Otherwise, apart from a mention in Jer Alford's "Obscure O.V.A.s", I found writings about Yomiko Readman in:

You Don't Look Like a Librarian: Shattering Stereotypes and Creating Positive New Images in the Internet Age, page 52 [I cannot read this because Google Books does not let you, but I can gather this discusses Readman and her role as a librarian stereotype] [already in the article]
A page from The Publishers Weekly, Volume 253, Issues 10-17 (sadly, Google Books doesn't give me much of a preview)
Page 540 of The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917 (sadly, Google Books doesn't give me much of a preview) [The Anime Encyclopedia, 3rd Revised Edition: A Century of Japanese Animation] is in the article, but this is a different edition]
Read or Die Vol 1 Review in IGN, of which four of the five paragraphs are about Readman's character in the manga
Review on Christopher Bolton’s Interpreting Anime which talks about Readman in Bolton's book on pages 117 and 118
Knjižnice i knjižničari u popularnoj kulturi [translated as "Libraries and librarians in popular culture" (in Croatian, looks to be a thesis of some kind) talks about Readman on pages 55-58, saying, in part, on page 57, "Yomiko is an extreme example of a bibliophile and a paper craftswoman in the literal sense. She can do anything she wants with paper, including creating magical shields, weapons, etc. R.O.D. has, through films, comics, and TV series, developed her own little world that is still revered by many loyal fans today...Yomiko is described as a typical bookworm, an introverted substitute teacher who wears glasses and is obsessed with reading and collecting books. As a true bibliophile, she often spends all her money on buying various books, so much so that her entire apartment is filled to the ceiling with romance and other novels."

Otherwise, some of the ANN articles cited in the article already, like "R.O.D The Complete Blu-Ray", "Read or Die DVD", and "R.O.D.: Read or Die G.novel 4" have a big focus on her, and "The Fall 2003 Anime Preview Guide" a bit less so.

All in all, I do not disagree that page needs cleanup. It certainly does, but an AfD is no substitute for page cleanup. Historyday01 (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to gather sources (I did find a few of these in my own search, but also missed many of them). Apart from the Fandom article, which I'm not sure is admissible, these all seem to pass muster for reliability.

However, although I think these are all good sources to keep in mind for covering the critical reception of R.O.D. in general, my own opinion on the notability of the topic is mostly unchanged. There's a handful of these I'd see as being useful to flesh out the article alongside sources that address the character of Yomiko Readman more directly, but I'm not sure those exist, and in general these look to all be using her only as either as an example (of cosplay, stereotype, or anime protagonists) without directly addressing her as the main topic, or else only cover her over the course of covering the plot of the series generally, which one would naturally have to do when she's the lead character.

I still think the article would be best off merged and/or redirected, but I'll wait and see what opinions other editors have on these sources before I comment any further. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Similarly, I'm willing to personally wait to see what opinions editors have as well, but personally, I would not be opposed to merging or redirecting if other sources cannot be found, although I would prefer a weak keep at this time. Historyday01 (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

References

^ Zuleika (November 22, 2018). "5 Classic Anime OVAs Worth Your Precious Time". Fandom. Archived from the original on April 19, 2025. Retrieved November 25, 2025.
^ Bolton, Christopher (2018). Interpreting Anime. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. p. 7. ISBN 9781452956848. Retrieved November 25, 2025.
^ Gibson, David (June 6, 2016). Overwatch: How A Hero is Mei'd. Archived from the original on October 13, 2023. Retrieved October 12, 2023 – via YouTube.
^ Espejo, Erica Victoria (2025). The Fangirl Diaries: Finding Community in Anime Fandom of the '90s and '00s. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland. p. 145. ISBN 9781476654904. Retrieved November 25, 2025.

Delete – Protagonist of an irrelevant anime series. Fails in WP:MILL. Svartner (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Deletion seems unnecessarily harsh and it eliminates all the work that people have put in the article at this point. All that editing history is eliminated. This is why I tend to almost always oppose deletion. Also, the series was not "irrelevant." At the very least, a redirect as the OP proposed is a better option. I still maintain a weak keep on the proviso that good sources exist. Historyday01 (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, the article shouldn't be straight out deleted, I'm only saying I think it should be redirected. The series itself looks to be notable. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
That's my thought as well. The series certainly is notable, but I do think due to the number of years ago this was and the fact that the series isn't streaming anywhere (as far as I'm aware), that may have reduced the number of articles on Readman. That's just my guess on that part. Historyday01 (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep. The article is very bad, yes. Most of it is fancrufty plot summary, and 3 out of 4 sources in reception are weak. However, she is mentioned on ~10 pages of the cited academic book [14], and other sources presented above suggest there is enough to prove notability of this character. The article needs a major rewrite (shorten fancrufty plot summary, expand with reliable sources analyzing her character...), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, that's my thought on it as well. The page certainly needs work. I've seen other character pages like this before, so having a page like this is not unusual, unfortunately. Like always, it depends on who works on it, and how much time they put into updating it. Historyday01 (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep. The character is a seminal example of a fictional character with her particular "paper master" metahuman power set, predating any that I'm aware of in North American fiction, and thus is notable as an early example of such a character. As for a lack of sources, there are many sources listed on the Japanese Wikipedia page for the character, which can be used by someone who is fluently bilingual to expand the English Wikipedia's page. --Rob Kelk 23:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
That isn't a page about the character, that's an article about the original light novels. I don't think any other Wikimedia project has an article specifically about Yomiko (if there is any it's not hooked up to the Wikidata item). silviaASH (inquire within) 23:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Redirect Per WP:TNT. Character may be notable, but the current state of the article doesn't really demonstrate that, and it would need a full rewrite. There is an obvious WP:ATD here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Read or Die per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. The character could potentially have a separate article (though that's somewhat debatable, as the sources make this seem like a WP:NOPAGE situation to me), but this current article really can't stay in the state its in. As stated, redirecting this to the main series page, where the character is already covered, is an obvious WP:ATD for now. Rorshacma (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep per WP:GNG. It looks like the sources presented above and those present in the article are enough for notability. While the article contains a lot of fancruft, it also has reasonably well-referenced sections on background, personality, skills, and reception. There is no need to TNT them. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

FIBA EuroBasket Division B

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

Fails WP:NSPORT/WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. 4meter4 (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep – The seasons individually have archived sources. The division's page itself only lists the final games, which can be verified in the sources I cited. Svartner (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Tri-State Regional Planning Commission

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

These pages were created by User:Thetransitguru, an editor who, along with their alternate account, User:Youalmosthadit, was documented at ANI for utilizing a large language model to insert generated content into numerous Wikipedia articles. Each article ~~and draft~~ listed here are creations of this user, and show signs of being LLM-drafted, such as hallucinated references, LLM-language/grammar, and large initial creation sizes by a user who at the time of creation had under 100 edits. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also LLM-generated pages by User:Thetransitguru:

OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Transportation, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Draft:Through-running at New York Penn Station, as a draft, should probably be removed from the bundle; the rare cases of a draft requiring a deletion discussion are handled at MfD. (I have no opinion or comment on the actual articles that were nominated.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Done I've stricken the entry and nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Through-running at New York Penn Station. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Nationalist-13

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

Sources do not evidence notability. All the sourcing is local news and low-quality monitor org publications (and this specific monitor org is not reliable, or significant, unlike the ADL or SPLC or w/e), or passing mentions. The only reliable source here that actually gives sigcov is the CBC source and the Radio Canada source but even that is not a source that particularly evidences notability, in the WP:ROUTINE territory of "local menace is menacing" and only in the context of a broader topic. Merge to Active Clubs, as the sources only talk about them in the context of being one of many. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Organizations, and Canada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep Disagree with the rationale stated in the nomination that "sourcing is local news and low-quality monitor org publications. . . or passing mentions." The CBS is not a local organization an the included article is does not have just a passing mention of the group but looks more deeply at the locations where Nationalist-13 members meet based on photographic evidence + describes some of their telegrams posts. The article drew attention from public officials + follow up coverage too [15]. And how was it determined that Canadian Anti-Hate Network is not reliable or significant like the ADL or SPLC? Some would argue the anti-defamation league is distinctly biased/unreliable. Additional reliable sources that at least mention the group and with potentially significant coverage depending on one's opinion (my opinion is lean-yes to yes for significance): [16], [17]. I also think deleting an article that covers a group, with sourcing from across at least 4 months, based on an argument of WP:ROUTINE event coverage is also inappropriate here. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

CBS is not cited here (I assume you mean the CBC?) and even the New York Times can report on local news. The Canadian Anti-Hate Network is a monitor org that does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and does not have the reputation of those other two organization (that it is not criticized as much is because it is too low profile). The two sources you mention are to the tune of one or two sentences each and are not sigcov, they say nothing other than repeating what they said in videos they released, and the other is the CBC again. The sources are all in pieces about active clubs, because active clubs are notable, and they give this as an example, because it is their local iteration. All the other sourcing is literally just descriptions of their social media posts, which is routine and not in depth coverage as is needed to pass WP:NORG. There is really nothing to say about them outside of "they are an active club". PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment is the Canadian Anti-Hate Network listed as an unreliable source? Lazarbeem (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

We don't have a list of every source ever made, so I don't see why that is relevant. Plenty of unreliable sources or marginal sources are not listed anywhere, but we judge by WP:RS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Well judging by WP:RS, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network is a source that can be used on Wikipedia Lazarbeem (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Not to my reading. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

So in your opinion? Lazarbeem (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Judging by WP:RS, it is not a source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy that sees wide usage by academic sources, unlike the ADL or SPLC. It is not a NEWSORG so we cannot assume reliability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the person in charge of CAHN the former executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation? Lazarbeem (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a reliable source? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per PARAKANYAA. The source analysis is spot on. We have reliability concerns with some of the sourcing, and the coverage that is reliable is either not in-depth or too local in scope to overcome the burden of WP:NOTNEWS. We would need better coverage to have an article under WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep enough sources and recent coverage Regna sereno intenso ed infinito (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep Found this Guardian Article: [[18]] CBC [[19]] ADL [[20]] Radio Canada [[21]] The London Free Press [[22]] and the Southern Poverty Law Center: [[23]] Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
@Agnieszka653 Most of the sources you mention are addressed above, and if you want to vote above. But I am confused why you think most of the rest count for notability; addressing the other sources you brought up the CBC source and radio-canada which are one sentence each, and the SPLC and ADL sources, which do not appear to mention this at all? Could you point out where the SPLC and ADL sources mention this Canadian group called Nationalist-13? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment Is there a policy to determine what is considered "too local"? I am still confused as to why WP:ROUTINE is cited as a reason for deletion since this page is not about an event but a group.WP:NORG is a good argument for deletion though many of the issues that NORG addresses (e.g. advertising) don't apply to this case.

There are alternatives to deletion here to with subject-appropriate targets for a redirect like List of white nationalist organizations (though that page needs work). I am not seeing an article covering white nationalism in Canada specifically but such a page would also make a good target. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Christian Riese Lassen

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

No indication of GNG or NARTIST. Most sources either don't mention the artist or only do so in passing mention. The one source that (according to the article) doesn't explicitly mentions the fact that the subject is not mentioned elsewhere. Fermiboson (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Hawaii. Fermiboson (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 18:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep - All 5 10 refs cover the artist by name in several sentences; stating that they 'don't mention the artist' is demonstrably false. The Takashi Kashima ref is focused on the artist and has 6+ pages on him. Christian Riese Lassen was also a United Nations Goodwill Ambassador in 1998 for the International Year of the Ocean, though I am still searching for good RS coverage of this.Dialectric (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

There is also an entire book published in Japan focused on his work and its reception. - Essays on works and reception of Lassen in Japan June 2013 by Film Art (Tokyo). Yuki Harada editor. [24]Dialectric (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

From what I can see, this seems like a set of essays about his work? Without the full book it can't be definitely said if it counts toward notability, but it might be a good source if it's not just an essay collection. HurricaneZeta^C 21:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

What policy page are you looking at that suggests that a book of essays on an artist, published by an established Japanese publisher does not count towards notability?Dialectric (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

There is also a Japanese-language biography written by Yuki Harada published by Chuokoron-Shinsha [25] (ISBN978-4-12-005724-3).and there is a review of the biography in bunshun [26] (in Japanese). Dialectric (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The Takashi Kashima ref (ref 1) in turn references several articles on Lassen published in Japan's largest newspapers including The Asahi Shimbun (April 18, 1997, Fukui edition, p. 15)(June 5, 1997, evening edition, p. 14) and the Sankei Shimbun (June 2, 1997, evening edition, p. 11) which constitute significant coverage.Dialectric (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete The first source is the only one that seems to have a good form of SIGCOV. The second one simply talks about his homes and the third one has glowing language and seems to be some sort of advertisement (might be wrong here). The fourth one mentions that his painting was stolen, but nothing about him (this one too). The fifth one does have coverage, but it's also regular coverage of an incident that is fairly common for news to cover. At first, the Google Books and Newspapers.com hits seemed promising, but nearly all of them are paid ads that just have glowing praise with no help towards building notability. As for the Goodwill Ambassador, it's mentioned a lot in Google searches, but I don't think that alone is enough for automatic notability. HurricaneZeta^C 18:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Adding: I searched up his name in Japanese (I believe it's クリスチャン・ラッセン) and most of the results cited/included that biography book above, so I believe that could be usable as a source if the contents are accessible. Additional Japanese source I found: [27], but I'm not sure it's reliable. The Japanese Wikipedia page isn't too promising in terms of sources either. HurricaneZeta^C 21:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete: No listing in the Getty ULAN [28], the NY Post article (not a RS anyway) [29] covers some aspect the artist, but we just don't have enough to show notability. The one good source mentioned in the comments above isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
That NY Post article just quotes from his website anyway, so it's not usable even as a non-RS to count towards notability. Also, I had no idea that he made that image. HurricaneZeta^C 21:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
That was what I was trying to show, I guess I didn't really explain it. Artist was only covered in a non-RS, that was all I found. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Since the last vote/recommendation was made, 5 new RS references have been added including a Los Angeles Times article and a full-length biography book published in Japan.Dialectric (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep per WP:GNG. I have no idea what this AfD is about, someone who was the subject of a 256-page book is obviously notable. This and this sources are also fine. WP:ROUTINE is about WP:NEVENT, there is also WP:CORPTRIV about WP:NCORP. As far as I know, there is no "routine" coverage on people. But in any case, the coverage here is not routine. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Makhni pyaz

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

Non-notable food dish. All recipes, including this article's lone citation, are for Dal makhani. Nowhere can I find "Makhni pyaz" mentioned. Jordano^5³ 02:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and Food and drink. Jordano^5³ 02:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Mar-a-Lago face

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

Nominating per the suggestion of Jimmy Wales and others, who said this article fails not only WP:NPOV but also WP:COATRACK. Personally I think this also fails WP:NOTABILITY (even if it's covered by RS, as the policy explicitly states that this doesn't guarantee it merits its own article), and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Lean delete There is probably could be a place for this topic on WP. The history of makeup/plastic surgery in politics could certainly be a notable topic to cover and this would fit as a section/subsection on such a page. I didn't identify any good redirects in my own relatively quick search, but if others find an appropriate page I would likely change my vote to merge/redirect instead. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662 What actually is your deletion reasoning here? As AndyTheGrump already noted in the linked discussion, NPOV failure is not a deletion argument because it can be resolved with editing; same goes for COATRACK. You suggest that it fails WP:N, but why? The article refers to a wealth of significant coverage of the trend, explicitly using the term 'Mar-a-Lago' face, so handwaving to "significant coverage doesn't always mean there should be an article" doesn't say much, so what's your actual contention here under WP:DEL-REASON?

As for my !vote, it's soundly keep for the reason that the article is well-sourced and clearly a notable social trend. FloridaArmy only brought the thing up for discussion at jimbo's talk page because of their own political bugbear. Athanelar (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Under Coatrack it says In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and if there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate., and it looks like that could fit here. You could also ask Jimbo Wales and FloridaArmy for their own reasoning. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

What makes this an extreme case? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

What makes the notability borderline here? Athanelar (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep as more than adequately sourced for an article about a social trend. Any "neutrality" concerns can be addressed through editing rather than deletion. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep there has been ample evidence that (1) wikipedia pages that describe cultural trends (hippie, beatnik, Lad culture), political/social movements or even stereotypes (see Jewish nose, blue haired liberal, yuppie), and can present these with WP:NPOV. (2) there is sufficient non-tabloid evidence of the existence of the trend, and (3) nearly 70+ years of academic evidence on the relationship between beauty standards, aesthetics, and outward appearances or dress of political actors or individuals within ideological movements. Mar-a-lago face is no different than the black shirts of the fascist, or bralessness of US 1960s feminist movements. Recent academic work has been listed in the article as a secondary source of the purpose, motivation, and reception of this physical trend among individuals with a particular unified political ideology. Abs145 (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep' per Athanelar. Clearly meets GNG due to the variety of coverage in reliable sources. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Fashion, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep for the same reasons I mentioned in the Republican makeup AFD. This article also could use a cleanup, an NPOV check, and pruning to make sure it isn't a coatrack. I think the argument for keeping this is weaker than the one for Republican makeup, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete - Per WP:NOTGOSSIP. We are in tabloid territory when we are writing about fashion trends and plastic surgery among celebrities. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and we should not sink to that level. — Maile (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
We have articles on Duck face and Whale tail, and the Thigh gap. I can see an argument about WP:TOOSOON/WP:SUSTAINED but the idea that Wikipedia is 'too good' to have an article about a well-documented social phenomenon doesn't hold water, I think. Athanelar (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Republican makeup

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

Nominating per the suggestion of Jimmy Wales and others, who said this article fails not only WP:NPOV but also WP:COATRACK. Personally I think this also fails WP:NOTABILITY (even if it's covered by RS, as the policy explicitly states that this doesn't guarantee it merits its own article), and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Lean delete Same reasoning as the mar-a-lago page. There probably could be a place for this topic on WP. The history of makeup/plastic surgery in politics could certainly be a notable topic to cover and this would fit as a section/subsection on such a page. I didn't identify any good redirects in my own relatively quick search, but if others find an appropriate page I would likely change my vote to merge/redirect instead. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep for the same reasoning I discussed above at the Mar-a-Lago face afd. The nominator here isn't even presenting a clear-cut WP:DEL-REASON so I'm not sure this is even a valid nomination. Athanelar (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep Wales is simply wrong in calling this a WP:COATRACK. It has a definite subject, not a nominal one. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Fashion, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep. The article is sourced and it appears that people are talking about makeup trends among conservatives. The article probably needs a good WP:NPOV check and some pruning to make sure it isn't a coatrack. I'm not versed in how to keep contentious topic articles neutral; I tend to stay away from such things. And at least Republican makeup is considerably less brutal than Republican marriage. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong keep I spent a lot of time making very sure the sources for this were as mainstream as possible. Obviously, based on the merger discussion and the still-unresolved issues there, it seems like the idea of this article has set people off, people who know enough already, apparently, to know that their opinion is better if they do not sully their neurons with the actual content of what they're denouncing. To say that both these articles are "terrible and not worthy of keeping" without providing specific examples of what in them is so terrible that they are beyond repair is to say that you don't want to be taken seriously in this or, indeed, any other deletion discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Alecto AI

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

While the founder of the organization, Breeze Liu, may be notable, the organization does not seem to be notable itself. Per consideration of the current article's sources and a WP:BEFORE, the organization is only mentioned in passing in relation to the founder's activism, but there is no in-depth coverage of the organization itself. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Artificial intelligence, United States of America, and California. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not convinced on founder notability, but I guess I'm not fully convinced they're not notable either. Either way, this can be a redirect to Breeze Liu until someone nominates the article on her also. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete - Breeze Liu's page is also not notable, dont bother making a redirect to an article that's gonna just get deleted later. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete Not finding independent significant coverage of the organization. I am also not convinced the founder is notable enough to justify a redirect as most news surrounding her relies on interviews and is difficult to consider secondary coverage. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

An Introduction to Ellie Goulding

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

Fails WP:NALBUM; should be redirected to Ellie Goulding discography#Extended plays. Red Shell Momentum 01:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, United Kingdom, and England. Red Shell Momentum 01:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Ellie Goulding discography#Extended plays – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Martin Hagström

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

No sources. Last source was a broken link in which i have removed. Wikiman2230 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. Wikiman2230 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment. Never delete a broken link used as a reference. Instead, you should use IAbot or visit the Internet Archive https://web.archive.org to look for an archived copy of the link in question. I restored the link and added the archived copy to the reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment: If this is the same person, then the new position should be added to the article. I think the two people are different, but adding or removing glasses and facial hair can change a person's appearance dramatically. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

[1] Zuleika (November 22, 2018). "5 Classic Anime OVAs Worth Your Precious Time". Fandom. Archived from the original on April 19, 2025. Retrieved November 25, 2025.

[2] Bolton, Christopher (2018). Interpreting Anime. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. p. 7. ISBN 9781452956848. Retrieved November 25, 2025.

[gdc-3] Gibson, David (June 6, 2016). Overwatch: How A Hero is Mei'd. Archived from the original on October 13, 2023. Retrieved October 12, 2023 – via YouTube.

[4] Espejo, Erica Victoria (2025). The Fangirl Diaries: Finding Community in Anime Fandom of the '90s and '00s. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland. p. 145. ISBN 9781476654904. Retrieved November 25, 2025.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]