Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< August 27	August 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yenka

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Education, and Software. jolielover♥talk 09:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: with WP:NPASR. No evidence of WP:BEFORE; nominator created 7 AfDs in as many minutes and has previously been warned for nominating without evidence of BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:NSOFTWARE, without prejudice to the issue flagged by Dclemens. Svartner (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With a valid Delete !vote having been entered, this no longer qualifies for a speedy keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking SK !vote above since it is now mooted by discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also note that WP:BEFORE may have not been conducted by this user on this or other pages, but regardless, Yenka as Svartner says does appear to fail WP:NSOFTWARE and needs better sourcing to be kept. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian-Kurdish clashes (1900–1910)

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:RS Iranian112 (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Tang Kam Man

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Hong Kong. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hong Kong at the 1976 Summer Olympics#Cycling – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:HEYed. Svartner (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hong Kong at the 1976 Summer Olympics#Cycling, where the person's name is listed. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
I expanded and sourced the article using articles from the South China Morning Post, Wah Kiu Yat Po, and Ta Kung Pao. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tang Kam Man (traditional Chinese: 鄧錦文; simplified Chinese: 邓锦文) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.
Cunard (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging BeanieFan11 (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I had a feeling you'd be able to save this, Cunard :) BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable upon expansion. Seacactus 13 (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Passes WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Do changes to the article change anyone's opinion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- given these additional expansions that has improved greatly the subjects notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Subject clearly never should have been nominated. Passes WP:SPORTSCRIT. – Ike Lek (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I spent a few hours looking at this. Based on my assessment, I find that the article passes WP:GNG, WP:HEY and WP:SPORTSBASIC. There were perhaps some minor concerns regarding WP:SIGCOV, but I find that on expansion these are obviated. WP:SPORTSCRIT is satisfied as well. In total, the degree of SIGCOV by RSS is sufficient to establish subject notability. Zach^H007 17:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris D. Jackson

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only WP:SIGCOV I have found is the Washington Post article. The list under "Notable media coverage" are mostly brief mentions of things he has said on Twitter but does not meet the standard of signficant coverage.

The article otherwise appears to mostly be WP:PROMO. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep – Chris D. Jackson meets **WP:GNG** through significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources at the national level.

- Major National Coverage**

- The Washington Post published a full profile in June 2025 focusing on Jackson’s role as a defender of President Biden’s legacy, his political work, and his online influence ([Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2025/06/04/joe-biden-legacy-defender/)). This is in-depth, non-trivial coverage in one of the most respected newspapers in the world. - Jackson authored an **op-ed in Newsweek** — “John Kasich, Welcome to the Resistance” (July 22, 2020) — showing original commentary published in a nationally recognized magazine ([Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/john-kasich-welcome-resistance-opinion-1519676)).

- Additional Independent Mentions**

- Jackson has been cited in The Daily Beast, Raw Story, and referenced on The Daily Show. These outlets provide further independent evidence of his national coverage.

- Addressing Deletion Concerns**

- Labeling the article as “WP:PROMO” is misplaced. Independent coverage in The Washington Post and an authored op-ed in Newsweek go far beyond self-promotion — they signify recognized notability. - Wikipedia policy is clear: if tone or balance is a problem, it should be corrected by editing — not by deleting a subject that clearly passes notability.

- Conclusion:** With a dedicated Washington Post profile, a personally authored Newsweek op-ed, and multiple other mentions, Chris D. Jackson clearly satisfies **WP:GNG**. The article should be kept and improved, not deleted.

MacroEcon67 (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No SIGCOV in my basic web searches so far, Google News even gave a hit for someone else with same name. If any can be found let me know so I may check to reconsider.Lorraine Crane (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 4/5 sources mentioned in the lead are unreliable. Please let's not give Nancy Mace more ammunition. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per NOM, the only significant and independent source I see is the Washington Post article. Others are either 1) brief quotes of him in sources about something/someone else 2) not independent (an article he authored, bios from his work, podcasts which are not ABOUT him, but him speaking). Adding to the evidence of PROMO/COI is that the creator of this article is a Single Purpose Account. Lamona (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete evidently unreliable sources and non-notable beyond that. Regardless of SPA/COI, should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of primary schools in Singapore. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temasek Primary School

AfDs for this article:

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

Was previously deleted due to a lack of notability, and as far as I can tell nothing has changed in that regard. Could be restored back to the redirect to List of primary schools in Singapore. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect to List of primary schools in Singapore. No evidence of notability, no independent sources. We normally redirect articles for non-notable school where possible. Meters (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect-to List of primary schools in Singapore. I agreeable as an ATD. No SIGCOV from independent sources, at least in my websearches on english sites so far.Lorraine Crane (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect status quo ante; fails WP:NSCHOOL. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as previously. About ten years ago, when I was rather more active here than I am now, I created a number of redirects (including this one) for Singapore primary schools because, while they seemed to generate a certain amount of interest, there seemed to be nothing sufficiently significant about them individually to attract the attention of usable independent sources. Regrettably, this seems to be the case here - the only source for the article is the school itself. And, while Wikipedia does tend to show some bias in favour of North American and western European subjects, while the school appears to be a good one, there is nothing currently in this article to suggest that we would regard a similar school in those areas as notable, either. PWilkinson (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of primary schools in Singapore per nom and per failing of WP:NSCHOOL to have an article. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. In addition to everything mentioned above, the text is most likely generated by AI. (The user's other similar edits are more blatant about this, having things like markdown left in the text.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of primary schools in Singapore. Alex78695 (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oley Dibba-Wadda

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

Not enough for me to pass WP:GNG. A few passing mentions in the current references constitute routine coverage, one referenced from the African Development Bank is a primary source, and there's an article about her joining in a political party, which is not sufficient to pass WP:NPOL. Uhooep (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify- I would agree with Noms analyses of the citations, so did more searches, found so far though the subject seems well mentioned in multiple sites which looks like close hits but lacks enough SIGCOV so far, this maybe the closest?. Though I suspect there maybe ones I just have yet to see so a bit hesitant to go delete.Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I believe a userfy/draftify option can be extended as a better WP:ATD when the subject is nearly notable, and sources are of a recent enough timeline that one could plausibly see the subject becoming notable with extensive work and digging for sources. This is one case where that may be an acceptable ATD. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. After discarding arguments not based on P&G, we're left without quorum, let alone consensus. Owen× ☎ 20:05, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pestana Equador

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

No independent RS on the page for a long time. Doesn't seem to be much to offer to consider against the notability standards for inclusion. Incidentally, it doesn't seem that there's a sorting category for São Tomé and Príncipe - which seems wrong. JMWt (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ilhéu das Rolas. Locally significant, but not significant enough to justify an article (lack of standalone notability). Yue🌙 17:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ilhéu das Rolas would be a great idea for an ATD. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. It has coverage in independent published travel guides such as this. It also has had some controversy in a published history of the island see [1], and is mentioned in this academic book on tourism in Africa [2] published by Routlege. There is also coverage in this academic book in Portuguese [3], and further negative criticism of the resort in this offline history of the Island Armindo de Ceita do Espírito Santo (2009). S. Tomé e Príncipe: Problemas e perspectivas para o seu desenvolvimento. Colibri. ISBN 9789727729081. There's enough to pass our notability guidelines. Note that there are likely more references in Portuguese than English on this particular topic, and I probably could dig up more if I continued searching. 4meter4 (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input on 4meter4's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The resort literally sits on the equator and has notoriety in that regard. It is featured on travel sites and guides. NevadaExpert (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Portuguese supercentenarians. Brandon (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria da Conceição Brito

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

Nothing beyond ROUTINE coverage, maybe a mini-bio in List of Portuguese supercentenarians. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 20:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 20:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Maria da Conceição Brito has had coverage for 8 years, meaning that she her coverage isn’t just passing. Currently on the article, there are 7 secondary sources, including a source where she was a story on national Portuguese news. Therefore I believe that this article should be kept, however I am interested to see what the deletion advocates say.

PrezDough (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Routine and mundane biography of a supercentenarian who achieved nothing exceptional in her life apart from continuing to breathe for 112 and a half years. A mini-bio is more than sufficient for the time being. If she should become the oldest person in Europe or the oldest in the world, then a standalone article may well be necessary. MattSucci (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content/sockstrike

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep Severe lack of WP:BEFORE nomination seems to be based on a talk page message not any notability guidelines 2603:7080:393C:353:1545:F9B:F7E8:72E5 (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet.— 2603:7080:393C:353:1545:F9B:F7E8:72E5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. :this seems to be a thread where a certain editor goes on peoples talk pages desperately trying to get someone to nominate the page based not on any guidline but just because its a certain biotype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chicdat#Maria_da_Concei%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Brito https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chicdat/Archive_6#Valentine_Ligny [reply]

~~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chicdat/Archive_6#Jules_Th%C3%A9obald 2603:7080:393C:353:1545:F9B:F7E8:72E5 (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)~~ Blocked sockpuppet.[reply]

Wwew345t/Steven547 is here again! You simply refuse to surrender. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wwew345t/Archive

As for asking more experienced editors to nominate an article for deletion, well, what is the problem exactly? Chicdat is extremely experienced and is also here for the benefit of Wikipedia and its community. Regarding the article, well my opinion is that these articles are too unencyclopedic, full of irrelevant trivia regarding mundane and run-of-the-mill lifetime experiences, to be on Wikipedia and should be on a supercentenarian/longevity fansite, until such time that there is significant national press coverage, which there almost never seems to be. MattSucci (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per my comments above, general consensus regarding supercentenarian articles and recent and/or past AFDs. MattSucci (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would prefer deletion, simply due to the incessant and premature creation of these unnecessary articles, but I am also fine, or at least indifferent, to merging and trimming the content. MattSucci (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging a few experienced editors from previous longevity/supercentenarian AFDs to assist in this discussion: @PamD:@Buidhe:@The Blade of the Northern Lights:@4meter4:@Vanamonde93:@Bearian:@JFG:@ScottishFinnishRadish:

Delete Per nom. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and article fails WP:NOPAGE (nothing but the usual longevity fanfluff). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MattSucci: Breathing doesn't confer notability. Insufficient SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article: NOPAGE applies. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On edit: I could also wear a merge per 4meter4 as an WP:ATD. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Portuguese supercentenarians#biographies per WP:ATD. The nominator was supportive of this in their nomination, and I agree that the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. Lately this seems to be the outcome for supercentenarians at AFD. We can cover them in lists. Note that I was canvassed on my talk page to comment here (although it probably was allowed per WP:APPNOTE), but that my argument is different than what the editor who placed the note said here. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to List_of_Portuguese_supercentenarians#Biographies, with the redirect categorised appropriately. I was invited to this discussion, having commented very similarly on a recent Japanese supercentenarian. PamD 16:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she has had continued coverage so WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Consensus has not solidified, as far as I can tell, on a policy about super-centenarians. A merger is a good alternative if the blue dress matters to you. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge maybe a minibio as suggested above, but this is about as obvious an example of WP:NOPAGE as it gets. She's alive, she lived, had a child, got a COVID vaccine... none of which is actually notable. If she's still on this side of the roses in 10 years we'll talk. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"about as obvious an example of WP:NOPAGE as it gets"...there are more... DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
..many more!! MattSucci (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It really never ends with this topic, does it? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am more persuaded by the Delete arguments in the discussion above than any other. The passing mentions and WP:ROUTINE coverage are not enough, and just being really old is only good enough if sufficient reliable sources bless you with the reporting to make it so. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning weak keep as the subject has close to WP:SIGCOV with [4], [5], [6] which are in the article. I'm OK with the merge suggestion of 4meter4 and PamD as this article is short and the bio could be copied to List_of_Portuguese_supercentenarians#Biographies with the key references. Nnev66 (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Portuguese supercentenarians per above. - Indefensible (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infestation: Origins

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

This game seems to not have had any notable media coverage since January 2024. I found one article from September 2024 saying that it would be available for early-access in October, but then no coverage after that point. It seems like this game gained a lot of attention when it was announced but has no WP:SUSTAINED coverage. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Disney. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. The only coverage so far is from trivial aspects of the game, the name and the usage of Mickey Mouse, with nothing of substance about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per zxcvbnm. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse, I wouldn't say delete this article since it is mentioned among the list of works featuring a public domain Mickey Mouse. And also, the game only got its notability because of Mickey Mouse's usage, and it's title. plant COAL 23:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for the redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse per above. Seems like a good WP:ATD-R target. --Mika1h (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse as an ATD, is agreeable as per the logic plant pointed above.Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ or more precisely there is a consensus against deletion and no consensus on whether to merge or not. The merger question need not be decided here and can be taken forward on a relevant article talk page if that is desired. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005

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

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

Landpin (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

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

It has been stated that legislation is automatically notable under WP:GNG and WP:RS. This is not true.

wp:RSPRIMARY states that "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources"
wp:ARTN states that "Notability is a property of a subject"
wp:PRIMARY states "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."

I have not found any secondary sources that mention this topic to establish notability. Landpin (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Landpin (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008

I find the nomination unconvincing and having more of sophistry about it than any attempt to build content. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Regulatory+Reform+%28Execution+of+Deeds+and+Documents%29+Order+2005%22+-wikipedia
largely lists primary sources or sources that briefly mention it in a list containing other law reform commission recommendations or other statutory instruments, without explaining the details
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Regulatory+Reform+%28Execution+of+Deeds+and+Documents%29+Order+2005%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1
empty
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Regulatory+Reform+%28Execution+of+Deeds+and+Documents%29+Order+2005%22
largely lists sources that just list statutory instruments, or law reform recommendations without really explaining what the details of the legislation are, or sources that discuss land policy and briefly mention this legislation in passing without explaining the details.

These links are available to you too where it says "find sources". Landpin (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wp:WHYN says "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic."

Landpin (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generic regulation, no indication of significance, no independent sources establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 13:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of regulatory reform orders. This is a perfect example of something that isn't exactly notable from significant coverage, yet just important enough that it should be mentioned somewhere. Bearian (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of regulatory reform orders per ATD. That list should probably start giving short summaries of the regulatory reforms. Probably several of them could be merged there if that is done.4meter4 (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Er, are we sure we want a merge? I peeked at the target article and it really is just a list. If what you're actually hoping for is a redirect (adding to the list if necessary), please !vote for that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG, with significant coverage in books and periodicals in Google Books, Google Scholar, the Internet Archive and elsewhere. For a few examples, there is a entire periodical article on the order in the New Law Journal [7]; there is detailed coverage in Anderson's Execution of Documents: [8] and passim (where it is cited as "RR(EDD)O 2005"); and there is also and article in Westlaw [9]. As far as I can tell, none of these nominations have been preceded by an adequate WP:BEFORE search, and all of them need to be looked at carefully. The nominators claim above that there are no secondary sources "that mention this topic" is certainly false. James500 (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Chora District. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chora, Afghanistan

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

I don't thinks this place exists. The capital of the district is Ali Shirzai. This town appears to be made up because CNN wrongly called it a town, instead of a district or valley. See for example here Dajasj (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Dajasj (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment Can we get a cite for the Ali Shirzai statement? Mangoe (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see the link I provided, but also here ("district center"). Dajasj (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A rename could also be a solution probably Dajasj (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page Chora District seems to refer to the same subject as this page. Kvinnen (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chora District per above, they might not be exactly the same technically (i.e. "district" vs "town") but close enough and questionable standalone notability by itself for now. - Indefensible (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Wiktionary entry. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawlessness

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

WP:NOTDICT. This is not likely to be able to be developed into an article because lawlessness is generally too broad of a concept to be encyclopedic. Currently it's essentially a dictionary definition. While wikipedia does allow for broad-concept articles, I do not believe that this meets that threshold. There has been more content in the article in the past, but has been removed for different reasons over the years. I think that despite its histories and page views, this does not serve to help the reader as an article. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 19:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting question. Is it a dicdef, or a non-standard disambiguation page to different kinds of lawlessness? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to wiktionary Oreocooke (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiktionary. In its current state, the article tells the reader absolutely nothing about the concept of lawlessness. Previous versions of the article have also been a mess of novel synthesis and original research. Short of a complete rewrite that can distil this broad concept into a coherent article, I don't see any reason to keep it around. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiktionary is sensible as an ATD. as its current form seems to lack in depth discussion of the topic as a standard wikipedia article should be at minimum, not opposed to Draftify in case the author would have it reworked.Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I tried and failed to fix it. Bearian (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to wiktionary and frankly this should be used more commonly as an option for the AfDs which fail otherwise per WP:NOTDICT. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. After the withdrawal of the nomination, I still see consensus that the article isn't ready for mainspace, but no valid reason to refuse draftification, allowing the author to continue improving sourcing. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign delegations at the 11th SED Congress

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

Although the author Somon claimed the event was “clearly notable” he has not yet provided any evidence that this list is correct or notable Chidgk1 (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and Germany. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:NLIST requires a reliable source showing that each of these 100+ parties attended. None is given for any one of them. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was clearly a major historical event, if the nominator had bothered to read the article that would have been clarified (as opposed to simply count quantity of references). I'd be ok with merging this into an article on the 11th congress overall. The original source for the listing is the official congress report, printed in GDR. I have not been able to reconstrue the referencing some 10 years later, can't find it online. --Soman (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman, I've got nothing against having this list if it's properly referenced - seems like it attracted some major VIPs, starting with Gorbachev. I'm happy to reconsider my !vote if you can provide references (and check them against the list). Ping me if you find them. Until then, I'm sticking with "delete". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B.:, it took some time but I found an online reference now - [10], beginning page 8. I only have snippet view, with the initial passage being "Wir begrüßen die Delegationen der Demokratischen Volkspartei Afghanistans unter Leitung von Noor Ahmad Noor ( starker Beifall ) ; der Ägyptischen Kommunistischen Partei ( starker Beifall ) ; der Vereinigten Nationalen Progressiven Partei ( Ägypten ) unter Leitung von Kha- led Mohieddin ( starker Beifall ) ; der Partei Nationale Befreiungsfront ( Algerien ) unter Leitung von Salah Goudjil ( starker Beifall ) ; der MPLA - Partei der Arbeit Angolas unter Leitung von Julião Mateus Paulo „ Dino Matross " ( starker Beifall ) ..." --Soman (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Disagree with Soman. This list is not notable on its own. Are there any modern sources that highlight this list? Azuredivay (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The event occurred in modernity, so all sources covering it are modern by default. But keep in mind that Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary, the SED party congresses were major events in East German political life. The events of the congress would have been covered in depth by a lot of East German media (newspapers, radio, TV, magazines) as well as plenty of coverage in mass media in rest of Eastern Bloc and in some Western media as well. In regards to the role of international delegations, their speeches to the congress were reprinted in book form in the GDR and massively circulated.

Now later Western scholarly works cover Gorbachev's participation at the congress and his tensions with Honecker, which is discussed in ample number of books. Arafat's participation, meeting with Gorbachev at the sidelines, and the issue of Libya events are discussed in DDR und PLO: Die Palästinapolitik des SED-Staates. This book comments that the 11th congress was the first time Arafat (PLO leader) and Gorbachev (Soviet leader) met in person. Here references are made to meetings with Gorbachev, Arafat and SED in connection with the 11th congress. Aussenpolitische Korrespondenz has a lot on the international participation at the 11th congress, but I can only get snippet view. It does discuss Faruq al-Qaddumi's and Arafat's participation, though.

This reference (pp. 30-31) outlines press coverage from Gorbachev's participation at the 11th congress. It highlights that there were press reports on meetings of Gorbachev with Arafat, as well as Gorbachev meeting with Yemeni Socialist Party delegation head Ali Salim al-Baidh and with Meir Vilner of the Israeli delegation. Page 19 of the same work flags that there was press coverage of Pyotr Demichev's reception of Gorbachev as the latter was returning from the 11th congress. Page 49 mentions TASS press coverage of the reception held in honour of the foreign delegates at the 11th congress. Page 49 also mentions press coverage on Vadim Medvedev's participation at the 11th SED congress. --Soman (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there was a TASS report on the reception of the returning CPSU delegation from the 11th congress in Berlin on April 22, 1986, which included Heydar Aliyev, Aleksandra Biryukova, Viktor Chebrikov, Pyotr Demichev, Anatoly Dobrynin, Vladimir Dolgikh, Andrei Gromyko, Yegor Ligachev, Viktor Petrovič Nikonov [it], Georgy Razumovsky, Nikolai Ryzhkov, Eduard Shevardnadze, Sergei Sokolov (marshal), Mikhail Solomentsev, Nikolai Talyzin, Vitaly Vorotnikov, Alexander Yakovlev, Boris Yeltsin, Lev Zaykov and Mikhail Zimyanin --Soman (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another potential reference is Ernst Hillebrand, Das Afrika-Engagement der DDR, P. Lang, 1987 - "... vollen Überblick über den Umfang der Parteikontakte der SED in Afrika gibt die Liste derjenigen afrikanischen Parteien , die Delegationen zum XI . Partei- tag der SED im April 1986 entsandten : *** = ( Die Sterne bezeichnen denDie Sterne bezeichnen den Parteirang des jeweiligen Delegationsleiters : Parteivorsitzender ; ** = Politbüromitglied ; * = Mitglied des ZK ) . Ägyptische KP ; MPLA ** ( Juliao Mateus Paulo " Dino Matross " ) ; APÄ *** ( Mengistu ) PRB * ( Benin ) ; UPRONA * ( Burundi ) ; Provisorischer Nationaler Verteidigungsrat Ghanas ; PAIGC * ; PAIGV ** ; PCT ** ( Kongo ) ; AREMA ** AKFM ** ( Madagaskar ) ; UDPM ( Mali ) ; FRELIMO ** ( Mariano de Aranjo ) ; SWAPO ** ; UNIP * ( Sambia ) ; MLSTP ** ( Sao Tomé e Principe ) ; PAI ( Senegal ) ; APC * ; ZANU ** ( E.Munangagwa ) ; SACP *** ( Joe Slovo ) ; ANC ; Sudanesische KP * ; CCM * ( Tansania ) ; Destour - Partei ** ( Tune- sien ) ; Tunesische KP ** ; FLN * ( Algerien ) ; Partei ..." The Angola Press News Agency writes in its English News Bulletin "...... Berlin on Friday 18 April by Political Bureau member Julião Mateus Paulo ' Dino Matross ' , who is the Central Committee Secretary for State and Judicial Organs . In Berlin heading the Angolan delegation to the 11th Congress of the - Socialist Unity Party of Germany ..." --Soman (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst looking for references, I came across this statement from George Robertson from a debate in the UK House of Commons in June 1986 "I was in East Berlin the day after that raid and with Mr. Gorbachev I was attending as an observer at the East German Communist party congress. Despite what the Americans did to Libya , few of the normally predictable ..." --Soman (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Swiss delegation, in Honeckers Handschlag: Beziehungen Schweiz - DDR 1960-1990 : Demokratie oder Diktatur (Erwin Bischof 2010), "... 1986 sprach der Vizepräsident der Partei , Peter Vollmer , im Namen seiner Partei am XI . Parteitag der SED in Ost - Berlin . Der Titel seiner Rede lautete , Frieden ist mehr als die Abwesenheit von Krieg " ..." --Soman (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Country Report: Uganda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Djibouti, Economist Intelligence Unit, 1986, "Colonel Mengistu visited Berlin a little over a month later to attend the 11th congress of the East German Communist Party . Both in Moscow and in Berlin the Ethiopian leader also held talks with the Soviet leader , Mikail Gorbachev [...]" --Soman (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Eleventh Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany The 11th congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany took place in Berlin on April 17-21 , 1986. It was attended by 2,683 delegates and also by 141 delegations from communist , workers ' , revolutionary demo- cratic , socialist , and social democratic parties in 104 countries , including a delegation from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union led by Mikhail Gorbachev , General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee ." [11] --Soman (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BBC Monitoring Service "... delegation off to Berlin Nur Ahmad Nur , member of the Politburo and Secretary of the PDPA Central Committee , left for Berlin on 14th April at the head of a PDPA delegation to take part in the work of the 11th Socialist Unity Party ( SED ) ..." [12]. From Sechaba "Comrade Alfred Nzo , Secretary - General of the ANC , gets a standing ovation after addressing the 11th Congress of the Socialist Unity Party ( SED ) , Berlin , GDR , April 1986 . Left to right : M Gorbachev , General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ; Erich Honecker , General Secretary of the SED , and extreme right , Haile Mariam Mengistu , President of Ethiopia " --Soman (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm working on a rewrite, with a better design. I've gone through pages 8-15 and 858-884 in Protokoll der Verhandlungen des Parteitages der Sozialistischen Einheitspartei Deutschlands, and each party and each delegate is properly referenced in the draft, with additional references available for some of the delegations. I'll continue a bit on the rewrite draft in the coming week. --Soman (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I hereby withdraw this deletion nomination to give Somon time to fix it Chidgk1 (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can't be withdrawn when others have voiced delete opinions, but it's still relevant to hear that you changed your stance! Geschichte (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and unverifiable list of limited relevance and interest. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - the nom is withdrawn, other reviewers want to delete, the author wants to keep working on it -> solution: move to draft space. - Indefensible (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, some examples of press coverage in the largest newspaper in the country - Weitere Delegationen zum Parteitag der SED, Weitere ausländische Delegationen zum XL Parteitag der SED begrüßt, Weitere ausländische Gäste trafen mr Teilnahme am Parteitag ein, XI. Parteitag und Abordnung der KPdSU ehrten Helden des sowjetischen Volkes, 2675 Delegierte und 1202 Gäste, Treffen mit den Gästen aus Äthiopien in der Bezirksleitung der SED, Weitere ausländische Delegationen abgereist, Der vierte Beratungstag (includes speech of CPUSA delegate mention), Mengistu Haile Mariam trat die Heimreise an. If someone has ND archive login, there is clearly plenty of material to dig into. --Soman (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a rough consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of Aragon (1980)

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

Although there may be coverage in books I am not sure there is enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Spain. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - PCA was a notable group at the time, and we should not lose track of the bias of only relying on online sources. For example, PCA covered in contemporary press on the legal disputes surrounding its registration (whatever we can find online today will be a fragment of what would have been available in print sources at the time). --Soman (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with nom that notability is essentially unverifiable per WP:V and therefore for a party which states "no longer exists", this stub should be deleted if an acceptable redirect cannot be found. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would be willing to keep something for which we had an indication of in-depth coverage, even that coverage wasn't accessible. I don't see evidence of such in this case. I can find a bare handful of passing mentions in scholarly sources, any mention of the party on the internet refers to its predecessors or successors in Aragon, and its electoral record (~1k votes in a province with ~1 million people) gives no indication that it would have been the subject of sustained coverage. The history can be covered at the party it was merged into: the title is an unlikely search term (why does it have a single year in it, in any case?) and so a redirect is not justified. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley News

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

Per the {{Multiple issues}} tagging at the top of this article, it seems to be promotional content written to promote the business of The Smiley Company, a company that licenses trademark rights for cartoon smiling faces. That topic (and Smiley) has been the subject of ongoing promotional editing. See the prior deletion discussions for two articles about the company's people: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin Loufrani and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas Loufrani (3rd nomination). Both of those resulted in article deletion or redirecting. In fact all three of the previous discussions for the Nicolas Loufrani article resulted in deletions, and there was another speedy deletion after that. There have only been two significant edits of the Smiley News article since its creation in 2022. The first one was the initial created draft and the second was by an editor who previously recreated one of those deleted articles around May 2020, according to a notice on their user talk page. I have notified those two editors of this deletion discussion. There are no articles that link to this one, except in a hatnote of The Smiley Company, where there is a link to a merge proposal discussion at Talk:The Smiley Company#Proposed merger of Smiley News, where the promotional tone is noted by two other editors (who I also notified of this deletion discussion). I don't personally see anything worth merging into the other article, which has also suffered from promotional editing. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Organizations, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Initially, I proposed merging the Article Smiley News into The Smiley Company as a simpler, less blunt option. However, the article is largely promotional in nature and relies primarily on affiliated or semi-promotional sources, with little to no independent coverage. On that basis, deletion is the more appropriate outcome, like (WP:NOTPROMO , WP:INDEPENDENT).--- Bayoustarwatch (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nero Burning ROM. ✗plicit 00:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NRG (file format)

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

May not be notable and may contain original research Chidgk1 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nero Burning ROM - No WP:SIGCOV. Passing mention here. Redirect is a fine outcome here, since it was originated by the Nero Burning ROM software. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for the recent redirect proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect i would agree with the redirect to Nero Burning ROM as an ATD, to note it seems well mentioned in a handful of relevant books, but seems more like standard textbook stuff. So having it redirected to the target article should give it better context than just a standalone.Lorraine Crane (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Iran at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Boxing. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eskandar Shora

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV with which to meet the WP:GNG. A redirect to Iran at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Boxing may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Iran. Let'srun (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iran at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Boxing – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iran at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Boxing, where his name was mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iran at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Boxing – As per WP:ATD. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage are found. Fade258 (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Old Iranian media can be hard to find, especially for those such as myself who cannot read any Persian, and do not live remotely near Iran. That being said, he seems to have received coverage from July 12, 1950 in Ettela'at Haftegy. I am working on attempting to obtain a copy, but I do not know if I will be successful, or how long it will take. If anyone has any tips, I would welcome them. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Issue number appears to be 467 and in-depth coverage looks promising if he is indeed the man in the picture on the cover. Ike Lek (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iran at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Boxing -seems sensible as an ATD meantime while Ike Lek is sourcing a possible lead source.Lorraine Crane (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – While I am still working to verify if this information is correct, I have found a source that seems to be claiming that he was Iran's first national champion in his weight-class, and thought it was worth mentioning. [13] – Ike Lek (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iran at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Boxing per WP:ATD. Zach^H007
Redirect to Iran at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Boxing as I am always happy if an acceptable redirect is found to go with that as a better WP:ATD than just totally deleting with no redirect or merge. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hussainiwala

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

An article about a battle at an Indian village in 1971, that is lacking any WP:SIGCOV in third-party, reliable, secondary sources, despite there being a plethora books focusing on the parent Indo-Pakistani war of 1971. The article currently only cites the scarce works of the Pakistani junior commanders, who fought the battle at the time and wrote memoirs and articles in the Pakistani fora about it, and these are neither reliable nor suffice for establishing the noteworthiness of the subject for a standalone existence here. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The battle resulted in the awarding of several gallantry distinctions on both sides. From Pakistan, personnel received 5 Sitara-e-Jurat (the third-highest gallantry award), 6 Tamgha-e-Jurat (the fourth-highest gallantry award), and one Imtiazi Sanad (Mentioned in Dispatches). From India, awards included 8 Maha Vir Chakra (the second-highest gallantry award) and 18 Vir Chakra (the third-highest gallantry award).

This engagement holds considerable importance, equivalent to Battle of Shiromoni, Battle of point 5140, Battle of Point 4875, and others.

It is important to note that battles are typically fought and led at the level of junior officers; one would not expect a flag officer like three-star generals or brigadiers to personally lead them. (However, the battle was directly fought by a Brigadier, and a Maj Gen was directly involved in the battle). The examples cited below also demonstrate this pattern :

Battle of point 5140 — Lt. Col. Yogesh Kumar Joshi
Battle of Point 4875 — Lt. Col. Yogesh Kumar Joshi & Capt. Vikram Batra
Battle of Shiromoni — Maj. Abul Manzur
Battle of Boyra — Flt. Lt. Roy & Wg. Cdr. Afzal
Battle of Kushtia — Maj. Shoeb

𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the battle has been in the national news of the countries which engaged in the warfare. For example - [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] and so on. The battle has been mentioned in detail in the sources mentioned above

The battle has been mentioned in numerous books as well, such as

India's war since independence : Defence of the Western Front by Maj. Gen. Sukhwant Singh
Against all Odds : The Pakistan Air Force in the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War by Kaiser Tufail
An Atlas of the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War : The Creation of Bangladesh by John. H Gill
Pakistan's Crisis in Leadership by Fazal Muqeen

The present condition of the article might be poor, but I assure I will improve the condition by adding additional citations.

𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tumblr is user generated. Bol news article is written by Pakistani military officials. Tribune is an opinion piece. Dawn article is about a review of a book written by a Pakistani military officer. These sources are not reliable for this battle. Shankargb (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The references of the four books mentioned above contains documented history, those can be used as reliable sources.

I'm currently reading the books, I'll add the citations today or tomorrow with cross checking the information with several sources.

Also, for your kind information, books written by army personnel are often considered as a good source, only if the information matches with another source — for this case it would. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lt.gen.zephyr, which reliable source says that this relatively obscure battle resulted in "8 Maha Vir Chakra and 18 Vir Chakra" for India, or are you making it all up by yourself? Additionally, getting a "third-highest gallantry award" or "Mentioned in Dispatches" may be a grounds for notability for the person getting the honour, but it is by no means a ground for notability of the battle itself. People fighting terrorists in Kashmir get these recognitions all the time but we don't go on writing about every other encounter.. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found a source about the MVC or VrC, I cited that as it was written there, though I have added a source about Pakistani awards, and hopefully you are educated enough to know the difference between encounter and a battle. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 07:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lt.gen.zephyr If you don't have sources for, hell your very premise for why you wish to keep this subject as a standalone article, you should desist from peddling these unverifiable details, which may mislead others into forming an inaccurate impression about the subject. Hundreds of battles are fought in a war, but, likewise, we don't indiscrimately write about every single one, only the notable ones. You wish to 'keep' this article because the battle allegedly resulted in gallantry awards and MiDs for soldiers and yet, that too you cannot attest with reliable sources. I don't see merit in your !keep. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the source for Pakistani awards. I'm presently working to improve the condition of the battle part, as I've already polished the article's ORBAT, casualties and aftermath version. If I find a suitable source for the claim of Indian awards to stand, I'll add it otherwise I wont. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I cannot find any sources that meet WP:HISTRS. Shankargb (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N. Most of the sources come from Pakistani army members, not the reliable sources independent of the subject. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 02:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty notable, starting with a 306 page book:
- Ahmed, Habib (2015). The battle of Hussainiwala and Qaiser-i-Hind: the 1971 war (1. ed.). Karachi: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1990-6472-4. Retrieved August 28, 2025.

There's also a book by Tariq Rahman that mentions the battle:

- Rahman, Tariq (2022). "The 1971 War: The Pakistani Experience". Pakistan's wars: an alternative history. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York: Routledge. ISBN 9781003254645. Retrieved 29 August 2025.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources you adduce are unfortunately exactly emblematic of what ails this article and why it is up for deletion here. Ahmed's The battle of Hussainiwala and Qaiser-i-Hind: the 1971 war is nothing but a memoir he wrote to relay his personal experiences from this very battle in which he claims to have commanded his Pakistani unit. For our purposes, this source is clearly unfit for statements of facts, much less interpretative or analytical claims concerning this subject. It may only be considered reliable for his own opinions, subject to our policies, period. While your second source seems to offer nothing more than a passing mention about this subject. The policy is clear that it requires WP:SIGCOV in "reliable sources independent of the subject", and we cannot have it go for a toss just to accommodate obscure subjects with no significance or claims to notability into our encyclopedia. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The battle of Hussainiwala and Qaiser-i-Hind: the 1971 war is not a reliable source here because the author was "a Commanding Officer at the time".[21]

The battle of Hussainiwala and Qaiser-i-Hind: the 1971 war is not a reliable source here because the author was "a Commanding Officer at the time".[22]

I would like to see page number for "Pakistan's wars: an alternative history". THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 07:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I have recently made a series of updates to improve the article, and for the sake of clarity and transparency I am outlining them below:

Territorial changes were updated in line with WP:NPOV to ensure the section remains balanced and neutral.
Strength and casualty figures were removed from the infobox as they were unsourced, fails verification under WP:V.
Ranks of the officers who had taken part in the warfare have been corrected, with citations provided from reliable sources.
ORBAT for both India and Pakistan has been revised using official military histories and neutral references such as An Atlas of the 1971 India–Pakistan War: The Creation of Bangladesh and others (with page numbers cited for transparency).
Details of the 4 December operations have been expanded with references from both an Indian general and a Pakistani Air Force officer. Since both sources corroborate one another, I felt this was a valuable addition.
Casualty figures have been updated with references from national news and the regimental history of 15 Punjab. I will try to source and add Pakistani casualty figures.
Awards and decorations : Pakistani recipients have been cited from reliable sources, while unsourced information on Indian recipients was removed until proper references can be traced and used.

I have aimed throughout to maintain neutrality, improve sourcing, and enhance the article’s overall quality. If any of the sources I have used are considered unsuitable, please raise the concern here or on the talk page. I am open to replacing or improving them where needed.

I plan to continue working on the remaining sections in the coming days, and I welcome constructive input so we can collaboratively ensure the article reflects reliable, well-sourced, and balanced information. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 18:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per analysis above. Lacks significant coverage in the sources independent of the subject. Azuredivay (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has significant coverage in the sources I've used. I've mentioned in detailed about them in the above comment. You may recheck the sources and read before commenting. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 08:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Having gone through the entire discussion above, I am not finding any coverage from the WP:RS that is not connected with the subject. Excelse (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Discounting the primary souces, the coverage is actually nil. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite a lengthy and valiant effort by user:Zephyr to try and justify a ATD here, the sources are either not reliable or independent enough to justify keeping at this time. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ways of Meaning

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

Does not meet the WP notability criteria for albums. Tiakat333 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 18:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Seems obviously notable, at least four reviews from reliable sources per WP:RSMUSIC: Allmusic, Beats Per Minute, Consequence of Sound, Pitchfork Media. --Mika1h (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nomination seems untrue/meritless. Geschichte (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, is has all the reliale sources and this person is borderline harassing me across Wikipedia at the moment and anything related to the artist page. Henchren (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first, fourth, ninth, and and eleventh sources all do not exist. The second and tenth sources are the same. If someone wants to clean up the article they can be my guest, but as things stand it seems that, considering those facts and the fact that the “Critical Reception” section is almost entirely long excerpts of exclusively positive sections of reviews I’m not seeing any justification for keeping this article as it stands. Tiakat333 (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per above comments by other editors. Alex78695 (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Young Person's Guide to Kyle Bobby Dunn

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A Young Person's Guide to Kyle Bobby Dunn

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

Does not meet the WP guidelines for album notability Tiakat333 (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, New Jersey, and New York. jolielover♥talk 18:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Seems obviously notable, at least four reviews from reliable sources per WP:RSMUSIC: Allmusic, Beats Per Minute, Consequence of Sound, Pitchfork Media. --Mika1h (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nomination seems untrue/meritless. Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, is has all the reliale sources and this person is borderline harassing me across Wikipedia at the moment and anything related to the artist page. Henchren (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated since I posted this but the source issues remain - single sources are counted multiple times (see numbers one and seven), at least two sources have no links or ways to access the content, and multiple sources are dead links (such as the NYT citation). Additionally, the critical reception section of the article is almost entirely long excepts of the positive statements in reviews. The whole article screams bias, though if someone wants to clean it up they should go ahead and do so. As it stands now it doesn’t seem to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Tiakat333 (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Just go ahead and do so. Henchren (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I was going off the sources, two of which are permanently dead links and at least two others are personal blogs. Tiakat333 (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. But no worries, we'll just move on. Geschichte (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of API simulation tools

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

This list article contains entirely original research with an unclear or arbitrary inclusion criteria. The article has a long history of included external links to different software providers, with few sources that could be considered reliable. Long history of promotional and possible SEO jacking on this article. Unclear inclusion material makes it difficult to update/improve. Delete as per WP:NOTADVERTISING , WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTLINK, . Requires regular cleanup to remove WP:SOAP and promotional materials by SPA accounts.

Declined Prod by single edit IP user. Nayyn (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nayyn (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
----

Hey, I have updated the content. Now, there are no external links to any of the websites I added. I also have one question: I noticed that some other tools have links, including their pricing pages. I am a bit unclear why these were not mentioned—should we remove them as well?

Additionally, I have updated the sections that I had added earlier. I look forward to your guidance and feedback. 182.48.237.44 (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the problems you document in this article. Could you explain where do you see these problems in the article? There is no original research as references are provided or can be made available. There is no advertising. This is not a directory but a comparison. And this is not a mirror or a repository of links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.167.203.95 (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed this because Wikipedia articles are not guides, or a repository of indiscriminate information collected by original research without reliable sources. This page is an example of both of these things. The collection of external links on this page, that are not independent of the subjects (see WP:NOTLINK), cannot be used to verify the claims made within. A main pillar of this encyclopedia is that articles must be verifiable and do not contain independent research.

There is a goal to edit the article to improvement, but because of the above, and the lack of clear inclusion criteria as to what tools make sense to have in this comparison, in my view it does not appear that it be edited to significance.

Nayyn (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have updated the content. Now, there are no external links to any of the websites I added. I also have one question: I noticed that some other tools have links, including their pricing pages. I am a bit unclear why these were not mentioned—should we remove them as well?

Additionally, I have updated the sections that I had added earlier. I look forward to your guidance and feedback. QAExplorer (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem in the content, I noticed that some other tools have links, including their pricing pages. I am a bit unclear why these were not mentioned—should we remove them as well? 182.48.237.44 (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As inherently against WP:NOTDIR. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of API simulation tools, since that's essentially what it is Shocksingularity (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm treating this article as a misnamed list article. It's usually not a good sign when we have a list for a concept (API simulation) that we lack an article for, and for which most (all?) valid entries are non-notable. Could this article meet WP:NLIST? The term "API simulation" is used, but not very consistently and not very much; I'm seeing no significant coverage of the concept. NLIST tells us: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Absent that sourcing, I don't think we can keep this article. (Aside: this is the kind of "it's useful" hobbyist original research that is a minor tragedy to delete. I hope the author hosts it on a blog or wiki that supports this kind of detailed information.) Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Metallurgist (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All That Is Solid Melts into Air

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

Relies heavily on primary sources and is almost entirely a plot summary, WP:NOTPLOT. The remaining sources do not establish notability. Also, does not seem to meet WP:BKCRIT. Metallurgist (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Thanks for all the new information. Lets work on fixing up this article and including these new sources. Metallurgist (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Metallurgist (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and New York. jolielover♥talk 17:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep stubify if necessary, but AfD is not cleanup and this book is clearly notable with reviews (often by notable critics) in the NY Times[23], Village Voice by Robert Christgau [24], Commentary by Hilton Kramer [25], Feminist Review[26], New Left Review by Perry Anderson [27], Boston Review[28], etc. Jahaza (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look at those and possibly withdraw, altho I think NBOOK is too easy, but thats another discussion. Thanks. Metallurgist (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we were going by GNG it would pass, there are dozens of reviews, which some are years apart, and book coverage too. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The book has enough reviews in reliable sources to meet WP:BKCRIT. More reviews: Literary Annual 1983, Library Journal, Nation, New Republic. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough to meet NBOOK per above. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the above, a quick JSTOR search finds a review in Political Theory [29], an academic book chapter calling it a "classic text" [30], and plenty of citations to it besides. Google Scholar finds another review in Third World Quarterly [31], one that revisits the book 30 years after its original publication (which is a pretty good sign of enduring influence). Indeed, GS finds over 13,000 citations. I think it's snowing. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stoewer V 5

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

Non-notable subject that I could not find anything online about. Could be redirected to Stoewer#Passenger car models. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has several citations already, this one alone takes care of WP:N. Mr.choppers | ✎ 06:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.choppers We need more reliable sources to establish notability. Unknown newspapers are NOT enough. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 22:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 3 of the citations are to pre-war Austrian and German automotive magazines. I checked each article. They are independent, reliable, secondary sources, meeting WP:RS. They were published under editorial supervision. This subject meets the requirements of our notability guideline. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on reliable, published, verifiable sources that are independent. References in languages other than English are fine to use. Meets WP:GNG criteria for inclusion. And as an aside...that turquoise blue roadster is a beautiful thing to behold, made me smile.[32] ;) Netherzone (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Brandon (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzeem Ul Firdous

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Language. jolielover♥talk 09:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I have found some references, including book reviews about the subject, and also a couple of articles on Google Scholar. In addition, I came across some general references which I believe are sufficient for WP:PROF and WP:NAUTHOR. The rest of the articles need some cleanup and copy-editing, which I will do once I get free, as per WP:ATD. Thanks. Baqi:) (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jannatulbaqi: I have reviewed all the sources you mentioned and found nothing that establishes the subject’s notability. Here is the breakdown of your references:

1, It’s an article about Urdu poetry; nothing is relevant to the article.
2, These are some routine book reviews. They are not published in any academic publications; instead, they are advertisements published in news media. Plus, there is nothing that establishes the subject’s notability.
3 This is a user-generated file-sharing website. What is the relation of this unreliable website to the article’s notability?
4, The article is about Urdu Ghazal in Sindh.
5 A catalogue of a book about Ghalib.

This article falls under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which states that it must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and the avoidance of original research. We must be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources. The sources you mentioned do not meet WP:NBASIC, which requires that people are presumed notable only if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we can find properly reliably published book reviews that could pass WP:AUTHOR. My usual searches for this sort of thing didn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Brandon (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Kumar Singh

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)

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG, with a lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sunny Kumar Singh is a senior IAS officer, currently serving as District Magistrate of New Delhi, a very important administrative post in India’s capital. He has also served as Delhi’s Excise Commissioner during a period of high public and political scrutiny. His receipt of the Prime Minister’s Award for Excellence in Public Administration (2023) and the Arunachal Pradesh State Gold Medal (2022) further demonstrates national recognition of his work. Coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources such as The Hindu, New Indian Express, and Times of India provides the required significant discussion required under the General Notability Guidelines. This combination of high-profile roles, national awards, and sufficient press coverage makes him clearly notable as a public official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yennavo (talk • contribs) 09:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those sources discusses Singh in any depth? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I checked the sources for the awards, and they weren't awarded to him personally but to the district of Changlang. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the Prime Minister’s Award for Excellence in Public Administration is technically given in the name of a district, it is awarded at the same time to the District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner, who is in charge of the administration. This is why the Government of India records it on the officer’s official record sheet, rather than just at the district level. The Arunachal Pradesh State Gold Medal works similarly, acknowledging both the district administration and the officer leading it. Therefore, the awards go to Mr. Singh as the head of the district administration. Multiple reliable sources have reported this information. I can provide government references and archived copies of the award citations, if needed, to explain the nature of the conferment. Archivelens (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wikipedia user @Yennavo’s view that Mr. Singh’s role as District Magistrate of New Delhi is important due to the administrative and political weight of this position. His time as Excise Commissioner occurred during a time of intense public attention and received coverage from several national media outlets.

As mentioned earlier, the awards are formally given to the district, but they are also logged in the officer’s service profile by the Government of India. This shows that they acknowledge the officer’s leadership as well as the district’s administration.

These key roles, national and state level awards, and ongoing coverage in trustworthy independent sources meet the criteria under WP:GNG for significant coverage and under WP:NPOL for public officials. Archivelens (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask you the same question as I asked Yennavo: which of the sources provides substantial coverage about Singh (as opposed to just mentioning him or quoting him)? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the question. The following sources provide substantial coverage of Singh.

[Source 1] : full length article discussing Singh’s career, contributions, and background.

[Source 2]: specifies multiple features focusing on his work and impact.

Other sources such as [3] [4] [5] [6] mention him and are included for additional context. Archivelens (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're both pretty promotional and I doubt they'd qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for raising this. From what I can see, the Times of India piece and the Hindu article both go beyond just a passing mention. They include biographical details and career milestones that count as real coverage rather than just quotes. The Hindu article in particular gives more local context to his work. I’ve also added a couple of other sources that expand on his role. It would be great if other editors could also take a look and share their thoughts, so we can make sure the article is built on solid references. Archivelens (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Delhi. jolielover♥talk 09:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've just realised that this article was likely written by ChatGPT (see the tracking code at the end of the URL in reference 7 here). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only one good source, which isn’t enough for WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In India, hundreds of people become IAS officers, and after that a few news reports are published about them, which is routine coverage by media organizations. This does not establish notability of the subject. In the present article as well, the sources are nothing more than routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple independent reliable sources, including The Hindu and Times of India, provide significant coverage beyond trivial mentions. Archivelens (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)— Archivelens (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
Archivelens, please link the Times of India source here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India article does mention him, but only briefly as part of a larger bureaucratic reshuffle. This isn’t unusual though, indian media rarely goes deep into the actual work of IAS officers and tends to focus more on the drama and noise around politicians instead. While that single reference alone may not be strong enough to establish notability, it does show that he was significant enough to be included in coverage by one of India’s leading national newspapers. When this is read alongside more detailed reporting, such as in The Hindu and other sources that highlight his responsibilities and role, the subject’s importance becomes much clearer. The TOI piece works best as a supporting citation that adds weight to the overall picture of his prominence. Archivelens (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see only one line - "Jha has been replaced by 2018-batch IAS officer Sunny Kumar." This is not WP:SIGCOV, so stop wasting everyone’s time. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Individual is posted as District Magistrate of National Capital (New Delhi) - Where all major establishments - The President's enclave, PM Residence, Parliament, Supreme Court are present. People outside of India might not consider this notable, however, the post holds enormous significance - much greater than entire wikipedia organisation - I believe. Yashvardhan7776 (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC) — Yashvardhan7776 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: This is clearly not a case of a minor figure. The person holds a senior position of authority that directly affects public life, and that alone makes the role notable. On top of that, there is already coverage in respected national publications. These aren’t just brief mentions but full articles that discuss responsibilities and decisions. Given the combination of reliable sourcing and the importance of the position, it’s clear this subject deserves to stay. Leaden Ghoul (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC) — Leaden Ghoul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Leaden Ghoul (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Archivelens (talk · contribs). Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Keep: Subject meets WP:GNG with reliable, independent sources covering his administrative work and policy contributions beyond routine announcements. Both digital and regular newspaper/media mentions.Cartilager (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC) — Cartilager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As I've asked other contributors here, Cartilager, could you identify the independent sources that provide significant coverage? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I can find. 1 2 3. I find this officer to be important in the Indian administrative context. Talking about significant coverage, I can see how there is not that much information online, so I think you are right to question his page. Cartilager (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Indian Express is the only piece of WP:GNG-qualifying coverage I can see. The Hindu is close, but it's mostly not about him, it's about the work of his district that quotes him incidentally to his official role. The rest is not close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even that first source is mostly just quotes from him, as well. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, above comments by a sock seems to be organised. Alex78695 (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other editors above have shown that the coverage does not meet GNG. I am quite sympathetic to the argument that some administrative officials should be kept following the spirit of WP:NPOL, as they may wield immense influence over large groups of people. I am not certain that the role of District magistrate rises to that level of inherent notability, as it is not a statewide office. It is quite likely that a high-profile IAS officer will soon rise to a position in which he will receive more detailed news coverage, at which point an article would be justified. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. No support for the nomination. Owen× ☎ 14:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Muslehuddin Siddiqui

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak keep: I have found a few sources that we can consider. Since this is not a BLP, I think we can allow for a bit more flexibility here. A detailed biography of the subject is available in the book Anwār-e-‘Ulamā-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat, Sindh (pp. 862–865). Another biography has been written by Shah Turab-ul-Haq, which can be accessed here. There is also an article about the subject on Scholar.pk. In addition, we can, in good faith, assume that there are further references available under WP:OFFLINE. Baqi:) (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep per Baqi. I would trust Anwaar Ulama-e-Ahle Sunnat and also that Tazkira-e-Qari Muslehuddin seems academic resource as a whole about the subject. Also that there seems an impact of the subject beyond religious scholarship. We have always had the challenges of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, and I such I believe we can have this article. Even though it needs a good revamp but AfD is not cleanup. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 18:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I believe this academic thesis (MPhil) makes me shift to keep :) _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 18:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since one of the votes to keep is from a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aafi. The subject has a fancy tomb and there seems to be a public garden named after him in Karachi that was opened by the mayor, so apparently they were notable. They pass on WP:ANYBIO. - Indefensible (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of airports in Ontario. Brandon (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bracebridge West Aerodrome

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

Non-notable airport, no independent sources found to establish notability, only routine directory/listing entries. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 16:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 16:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of airports in Ontario as per others were done. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Cruzeiro EC. Brandon (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Società Sportiva Palestra Itália

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

SS Palestra Itália was the former name of the current Cruzeiro EC, not a separate club [33]. A similar situation occurred with SE Palmeiras, which changed its name due to Brazilian law during World War II [34]. Fails as a WP:SPINOFF. Svartner (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cruzeiro EC per nom, we do not have separate articles when the same club changes name. Giant Snowman 19:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EML Vapper

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

I was looking for sources and just found some random ship listing databases and fan pages, none of which have any significant depth or coverage. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 15:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Estonia. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 15:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Only sources I could find were random unknown websites. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of passing WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sussex Merlins

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

Non notable defunct team. --wooden superman 15:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 15:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 16:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single source article Mn1548 (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability; no coverage in GNews. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see consensus that MBE alone is not enough to confer notability. Owen× ☎ 20:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Morris (health activist)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this BLP of a health activist, and added a reference to some local news coverage. I cannot find significant coverage, however, and don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- According to WP:ANYBIO, an Order of the British Empire should be enough to establish notability. There is a reliable source indicating that he is indeed and MBE -- this article is poorly written, and stinks of Wikipedia:SELFPROMOTION, but it satisfies the notability guideline at this point. Slightly off topic but there needs to be dialogue on the notability of MBE's as there are a ton of them. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understood it was CBE or KBE upwards that would be likely to confer automatic notability. Found a couple of relevant discussions: 2018; 2016; 2017. Tacyarg (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, CBE or above. MBE is certainly not high enough. Far too many of them are awarded every year. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as nom). Another editor has removed one of the references, so we are now down to two for this BLP. Tacyarg (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. MBE is two levels lower than CBE, which appears to be the level required for notability. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Brandon (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TX2

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

Contested draft. This article does not demonstrate this band meets the criteria of WP:NBAND with no charting songs and the 3 sources being 1 primary sources, 1 PR source and 1 non functional sources. Other sources found have been from colleg papers or other SEO type listings. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have fixed the non functional source. It is here. No comment on notability. ResonantDis_tortion 08:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hate to be an avid user of whataboutism/otherstuffexists, but they don't NEED to have charted songs to have a page. there are plenty of other criteria that can allow an artist page to exist. especially considering the amount of other artist pages who's subjects have never had charting songs. Haaayzey (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Haaayzey, so which criteria do you think they meet? I didn't say they had to have a charted song, only it's a quick avenue to determine notability. I then evaluated the sources in the article at the time and the ones I could find in my WP:BEFORE search. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has had several EPs/works published through a major record label, currently one of the most popular/notable pop-punk bands of Colorado, has been placed in rotation of a major radio station (Octane (Sirius XM)). Haaayzey (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of LGBTQ+ studies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why this was deleted. He is a music artist and he's had multiple songs on Sirius XM's Octane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tx2fan4lif3 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why this page has been suggested for deletion. I genuinely suspect it is simply down to someone not liking TX2, either personally or because they do not agree with Evan's opinion of Christianity or LGBTQIA+ issues. The information on this page appears to be accurate and why shouldn't TX2 have a Wiki page? I think bad actors and prejudice are behind this deletion suggestion. 2A00:23C7:47BF:901:A1D1:3D48:DB85:CF41 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see any evidence of the subject passing WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. These profiles appear to be based entirely on WP:INTERVIEWs of the lead singer and likely aren't independent for notability. Citing Reddit threads for negative commentary on the band is contrary to all guidance on reliable sourcing and arguably a WP:BLP violation (even though this is an article about a band). As for the accusation of bias made above, I had never heard of TX2 before reviewing this article and AfD and I agree with the nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nithish Sahadev

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

The subject is a director with only one released feature film and no significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources demonstrating lasting notability. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Only one film as the main director, without any major repercussions. Svartner (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets Wp:Director as director of at least one notable film, that received independent coverage. - E. Ux 18:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Draftify per WP:TOOEARLY. He has only directed one notable short film and one feature film, let his other 2 upcoming films release first. DareshMohan (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge one way or the other. It used to be common practice to merge the film into the director's article, but nowadays it's the other way. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eva UX, he meets the notability requirement. - Indefensible (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This has been open for a month and has been marked by poor argument. WP:BLP1E/WP:ONEEVENT (those are the same guideline) is not relevant here: this is not a biography, this is an article about an event. Conversely, many keeps contain bare assertions of notability and no engagement with the arguments to merge or redirect per NOPAGE: when an article about the wider phenomenon exists, is the reader better served by placing this information in a standalone article or a broader article? A handful of policy-based !votes exist, but these are evenly split, and I cannot discern a consensus to delete or keep. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Evyatar David

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

I am nominating this article for deletion per WP:ONEEVENT and the likelihood that continued coverage is unlikely once David is released. Patient Zero^talk 23:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He's one of the group that got kidnapped, he's not much different than any other person in the group... Why is he more notable than any of the other hostages? We literally have nothing about this person, no backstory, not even much of a description. The article consist of when and where he was born, and famous people reacting to his kidnapping. Getting kidnapped is not notable, I'm not sure what else he's known for. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, I’m thinking of withdrawing this AfD nomination. Do you still agree with your position, and if not, would you be willing to strike your !vote? Thanks, Patient Zero^talk 23:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing notability, a merge to the article perhaps, but not enough to withdraw it. Oaktree b (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think he's notable in the context of the video, showing him emaciated and being forced to dig his own grave. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaza war hostage crisis#Adults. Even though this kidnapping has become notable, including likely continued coverage, at present length I do not view this article as a justified SPINOFF. Knowing the dynamics: the article will be expanded and I will need to change to keep, yet redirect is my current best verdict. gidonb (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As predicted, I would need to change my opinion soon enough, and this was the case. The kidnapping is notable by the GNG and EVENT. Given the broad media interest and by similar cases, CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is extremely likely. 1E, while an important policy, does not apply. The article is now long enough to stand on its own and merging into the parents would create UNDUE. SPINOFF is a very important and often neglected guideline. We create crazy fragmentation by not adhering to it enough. gidonb (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I now find myself agreeing with this, Gidonb. I am thinking of withdrawing the nomination. Patient Zero^talk 23:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for considering, User:Patient Zero. Maybe also give it a bit extra time at the next nomination. While this article started premature, so do a lot of other articles. Warnings are a better remedy if something is missing. This man has become an icon, as have many others during this bloody war. In hope of better times! 01:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. Yes, I completely agree with you there! I note we now have an article on Emily Damari - I mention her because the photo of the gesture she made with her injured hand became an iconic symbol too, and I followed all the news surrounding both her kidnapping and release. I realise now upon reflection that I was too quick to nominate this article. Also hoping for better times; I know of many people personally who this has deeply affected. Patient Zero^talk 02:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I relayed at the deletion discussion for Omer Shem Tov, I am skeptical that WP:ONE EVENT should be applied to experiences that have lasted 600+ days, which is not typically the case with most events that guideline likely contemplated. Nor is it appropriate to delete the article on the speculation that coverage will cease -- let time play out, and then see what happens. (Nor, unfortunately, can it be presumed, as in the nomination, that this hostage will be released.) The article is expanding by the day, and that is entirely in keeping with regular wiki procedures -- indeed, it is the reason there is a stub-class, and then a start-class, and so-forth. Coining (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources. Per continued coverage. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep yes it is one event, but this particular individual and the surrounding coverage have been extensive. Also it is not entirely "one event" as now the ongoing struggles of this person have been additionally well documented and reported on by reliable sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, latest comment by OwenX was spot on, this is definitely notable and stands to have its own article as time and coverage have gone by. My Keep should likely be changed to strong keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NOPAGE; every paragraph in this article would fit just as well in a broader article on the hostage crisis. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This article falls under WP:ONEEVENT. The subject has not demonstrated WP:LASTING significance, with minimal activity (only one edit in the past four days). Coverage appears to be limited and primarily sourced from a billboard display at Times Square, New York and a select few politicans commenting (Marcon, Mertz, and Lammey). The current sourcing and framing suggest an attempt to promote a specific narrative, potentially diverting attention from a broader issue such as the Gaza Strip famine. Lf8u2 (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment: What makes David more notable than the other Israeli prisoners seems to be the videos Hamas released of him. But I don’t know if that makes him notable enough to warrant his own article. Rainsage (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Current content about the Hamas video showing the impact of the Gaza Strip famine on hostages can be covered in Gaza war hostage crisis#Treatment of captives. EvansHallBear (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow consideration of the NOPAGE argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to WP:ONEEVENT. There is no biographical information about the subject or the subjects significance within the crisis. The article should be merged with Gaza war hostage crisis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dualpendel (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BADFORK of Nova music festival massacre and Gaza war hostage crisis. This is just one person caught up in these wider events and we shouldn't have pages on each individual victim. Additionally, a separate biography page fails WP:BLP1E; although I note it has been renamed as an event page.4meter4 (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please note that the article is about an event, not a biography. Therefore, WP:ONEVENT and WP:BLP1E are irrelevant here. The key question before us is one of readability per WP:NOPAGE: would the reader be better served by this standalone article, or would they benefit from a broader context within another article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has received sustained coverage with the release of the video in the context of the allegations of famine and starvation in Gaza. The video received quite a lot of press, so this is not ONEEVENT. Metallurgist (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have doubled the size of the article and added several sources, fleshed things out more. Metallurgist (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in Support of Keep - The article continues to be expanded upon and improve. WP:NOPAGE is not appropriate here, as the article has its own standalone importance. Coining (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage of the kidnapping and the released videos has been ongoing for many months, so this is not a case of ONEEVENT. In addition, a standalone article better serves the reader; if the details are merged into the broader Gaza war hostage crisis, the uniqueness of this case and the context of the extensive media coverage would be lost. There has also been attention from international leaders (such as Trump), which further underscores the independent notability of the article. Eliezer1987 (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the video and horrific circumstances of his captivity, this article has crossed the line into notability.DaringDonna (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Coining statement. This particular case had worldwide repercussions. Svartner (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Gaza war hostage crisis#Treatment of captives per WP:ONEEVENT and previous comment by 4meter4. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its not one event. This isnt a BLP, and coverage has been significantly extended beyond his mere existence as a hostage. So, that would be two events under BLP, which it isnt anyway. Metallurgist (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to WinDVD. ✗plicit 00:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trimension

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Netherlands. jolielover♥talk 09:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not found sources describing this software independently in detail. Seems to be defunct. Difficult to find articles due to other companies using the name trimension. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WinDVD - Mentioned there, and I was able to find at least basic sourcing to verify the existence of this software. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WinDVDper Suriname0. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ulises Humala

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, unsuccessful election candidates do not get articles just for being candidates, and have to show some other grounds of preexisting notability besides their candidacy per se -- but the main notability claim here is an unsuccessful candidacy, and otherwise the article has far more to say about his political opinions than about him achieving anything that would count toward NPOL.
Further, even the sourcing here is mostly more about other members of his family than about him, and the only one that's about him in any meaningful way is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person (thus fine for verification of facts, but not counting for anything toward establishing passage of WP:GNG.) Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Peru. Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Won 0.2% of the presidential vote behind 13 other candidates.^[35] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. After two relistings, no further support beyond the nominator for draftification or other removal from mainspace. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical ships of the Brazilian Navy

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

Draftification because of no sourcing reverted without explanation; currently minimal sourcing verifies only a tiny part of the list. Suggest re-draftifying until the list adequately meets the core content policy WP:V. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Engineering, Transportation, Lists, and Brazil. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I created a separate page to 'List of historical ships of the Brazilian Navy' bcoz it helps to make the page more visible and readable, in current situation it is a section and gets suppressed under other major sections, where it has little to no sources provided to support. please note this section has been present since a long time but no sources were present, (it was just a section). creation of a separate page will allow for addition of more sources and provide better validity and visibility to a significant part of brazil navy chronology
Bonadart (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ per the "Incubation" section of our deletion policy. This article doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NLIST yet. Bonadart I really like what you've done so far and where you're going; I look forward to seeing this as a bona fide article. Before then each item in the list either needs a blue link (i.e., its own reliably sourced article) or it needs to cite a reliable reference. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadart, pt:Marinha do Brasil, the Portuguese Wikipedia article for the Brazilian Navy is very good and heavily referenced. It's a featured article and a potential source of refs. Google Translate can be your friend there. You might also contact the naval attache at the Brazilian embassy in your country - they might point you to some useful resources. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadart, I just found a list of historical ships on the Portuguese Wikipedia: pt:Lista de navios descomissionados da Marinha do Brasil. I hope this helps. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for all the help, but my point is i didnt create this page out of thin air, it was already there in list of active ships of brazilian navy, as a section but without any source for the past several years, no one ever bothered to add any source (dont believe me, you can chk the section is still here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Brazilian_Navy_ships). i created the separate page bcoz this is an important page that delves in list of ships of brazil navy since past 3 centuries, as such deserves a own space. whoever created this page in the first place, should have added source, anyways will try and look into the source you provided to help the page flourish. but kindly understand drafting it will literally orphan the section in the link provided. Bonadart (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and proposal fails WP:DRAFTREASON and WP:DRAFTNO. Nobody is making a serious claim here that the topic doesn't meet WP:NLIST because we all know based on the sources extant in the article on the Brazilian Navy that the sources exist to support this list. Per WP:NEXIST we don't need to judge this list based on the sources currently in it. I see no reason that improvements can't continue in the normal way in article space. We have set rules as to when we can use a move to draft here at AFD and none of them apply in this context.4meter4 (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the keep vote, the list was lying in the page for active ships as a section without any sources being added for several years. since creation of new pge some new sources have been added, in page and here in discusion as well, hopefully now more sources will added to add weight to page which deserves own space. Bonadart (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One of the two Keeps brings up no P&G-based arguments, but we don't yet have quorum to move the page out of mainspace.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yet another poorly-sourced list. With WP:NLIST being what it is, I see no justification under current policy for deletion. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks but i am confused are you saying it doesnt meet notability, and poorly sourced? actually this was lying orphan with no source for past several yrs in active ship list, both none bothered to add a source.i created it as separate as its imp. n deserves own space seeking help[ from others to add source Bonadart (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Bonadart, I'm saying that the list meets WP:NLIST. Sources discuss Brazilian Navy ships in a group, so we can keep the article on that basis. However, the article lacks inline citations to verify the factual content in the list article. I should not have included my complaint along with my vote; I was echoing a common complaint about many wikipedia lists that they commonly lack (many) inline citations. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the clarity if possible kindly add source. my best guess is that most ships listed here have there own wiki links Bonadart (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have made 24 edits to the article today, linking various ships to other Wikipedia articles so we now have blue links for the majority of the Imperial Brazilian Navy. There much more to do but I think this is a credible start. In some cases where we didn't have articles for ships, I linked to battles they fought in. There are still many ships of the Republic Navy to do. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the edits. I created the page but unlike other pages I created I couldn't add source bcoz i thought most be in Portuguese that I don't know. I waited to see if anyone can add source which was the only issue I saw people voted but didn't bother to add source. thanks now atleast none can argue no source about this page Bonadart (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Dewey and Library of Congress subject classification

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/DDC and LOC

Articles for deletion/List of Dewey Decimal classes (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Comparison of Dewey and Library of Congress subject classification

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

The last discussion ended in a no consensus and WP:TRAINWRECK. New arguments that have appeared are that there isn't any significant in depth secondary coverage of this topic or scope. Logoshimpo (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the previous discussion that nominator is referring to. Moritoriko (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a topic, but the article needs to be greatly expanded. The topic of a comparison between DDC and LCC is very common in the field of library science. A quick search through TWL got me this paper that compares teaching both systems, this paper (abstract only) that compares both systems in the context of African literature, another article comparing them in the context of movies, this paper (abstract only) compares them from a technical context that I am not equipped to understand fully, another very old article (first page only) about classification systems, a treatment of speech in three catalogue systems (first page only), and finally a doctoral thesis about the preference between the systems. I think there is a great amount that can be added to this article so the page itself is a keep. All articles listed here can be found in full through TWL. Moritoriko (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources found by Moritoriko above look promising at a first glance, and they might be able to be used to write an article about a comparison between DDC and LOC (I'm not 100% convinced that such an article is needed instead of putting this information on the main pages themselves, but that's a separate issue, and I'm probably fairly ambivalent about it overall). But, the article that was nominated isn't that article. Despite the name, this is merely a conversion from DDC number to LOC number, and nothing else. So if you want to write an article about an actual comparison, I'd say go right ahead, but in that case, this one should still be deleted first to make way for the new one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why this article should exist, separate from smaller sections on their respective pages, is because they are the two largest systems in use in the US (and maybe the world?) and they are often compared as you can see in most of the sources. Delete votes should be reserved for when the article subject cannot be reasonably turned into an article, despite what the current content is. Delete per TNT is for when even the history of the page is so bad that it should be wiped from the site and that is not the case here, I hope you would agree. Moritoriko (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm pretty ambivalent on whether to make your proposal a separate article or include it at the main pages; either way is probably fine. However, this article, as it stands, should still be deleted, because the topic of the article, as it stands (and always has stood), isn't notable. That the title appears to represent a notable topic is irrelevant here, because the current article is mis-titled. If you want to go step-by-step here, what should really happen is that this article should be renamed to something like "Table of conversions of Dewey Decimal numbers to Library of Congress numbers" (or whatever), then it should get deleted, and anyone would be free to write a proper comparison article in the mean time. But that's just extra hassle, and you probably wouldn't be bothering to advocate keeping in in that case. TNT absolutely does apply, because there's nothing salvageable here, and what you're proposing is essentially completely unrelated. Let's just delete what's here, and then a new article can be written instead (either at the exact same name, or a slightly different one, or content can be added to the main articles, or whatever). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recommendation goes against the guideline to make a determination based on an article's potential, rather than its current status. If the topic is worth bringing back at a later date, then it should be retained until it can be improved. @Moritoriko just found the tip of potential sources; this topic covers a main principle of librarianship and is covered in many books and scholarly articles. In addition, this information is taught to many college freshmen as part of their orientation to the campus library. Rublamb (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:HEY. I expanded the lede, added sources, and converted the list of sources into inline citations. There are now numerous reliable sources that discuss the comparison of the two classification systems, meeting the notability requirement for a stand-alone list article. (the main sources for the table are listed in the paragraph before the table). I am confident there are more sources in professional journals and books, meaning this article can continue to be improved. 01:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Rublamb (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This topic is notable and meets WP:N and I see many secondary sources. It needs cleanup and as suggested it can be improved. Asteramellus (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:ATD and WP:NOTESSAY. Currently this article reads like an essay. The statements being made in wiki voice appear to be subjective opinions which need in text attribution. However, this is a surmountable problem that can be solved through editing. It appears the sourcing in this area passes WP:SIGCOV so there isn't a notability reason to delete this. I think the best thing to do is send this to draft and require it to go through WP:AFC where work can be done to solve the issue of essay type writing through editing. In its current state it isn't ready for main space.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For this AfD, I expanded the article's lede using reliable secondary sources. This was needed to help establish the subject's notability and to provide context for the list that follows. Yes, the text compares the two cataloging systems; however, that is the purpose of this article. The statements that you are interpreting as "opinion" are factual representations of numerous sources and have citations. As there are no quotes and all text has a citation, attribution is not needed. Rublamb (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but they still require in-text attribution (ie who is saying it/making the claim) otherwise it reads like an essay. There are many large libraries that don't use LOC classification so the assertion is not necessarily widely accepted. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are analyzing the article based on your personal experiences, rather than the sources. Regardless, the text says DDC and LC are the most commonly used cataloging systems and makes no claims about all libraries. It says that LC works better for larger libraries, not that all large or academic libraries use it. In fact, it specifically says LC's use is mostly limited to the US and Canada, which leaves a ton of colleges and universities out that using a different system. The reason attribution is not needed is that these are accepted facts. LC was designed to solve cataloging problems in large and highly specialized collections. For example, every book in a university physics library would have the same call number in DDC, while LC has a range on alpha-numeric call numbers for the same subject, making it easier to find materials. Users who want to learn more can simply follow the link to the articles on these two systems. Rublamb (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLC isn't widely used outside of North America and we are a global encyclopedia. Hence the need for attribution and source discussing this outside of American and Canadian publications.4meter4 (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a source for that fact because I have found sources showing its use outside of North America.[36][37] It should be noted that even if these two classification systems were only used in Washington DC the amount of research and commentary on the comparison between the two systems is enough for there to be an article on this topic. Moritoriko (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's literally what our article currently says in the opening paragraph with a citation.4meter4 (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and hope someone will improve it. The topic itself is something that gets discussed in library sciences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion after Rublamb's expansion / improvement
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but O-Boy does this article need work. Most of the sources used are either minor or direct sources (DDC and LCC web sites). I have made a number of edits because there were statements that were not supported by the sources cited. Delete Many of the changes I made were reverted back to unsuitable sources and sources that do not confirm the "facts". I think under these circumstances that it is better to delete this article and hope that if someone wishes they will create an article with facts and quality sources. There are plenty of quality, academic sources for this topic - some of which are listed in the "further reading" section but not used to support the article. Questions that should be discussed are: the consequences of the notational choices; the degree of representation of some key topics (e.g. technology). Then there's the table: 1) there is no reason to have a gigantic table in the article when the same info can be found elsewhere (and recorded in "external sources") 2) both of these classifications change, albeit not rapidly, but the table here will get out of date whereas ones at LoC and/or OCLC will not. The discussion of examples of differences can be illustrated with a few comparisons rather than this overly long table. 00:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)Lamona (talk)

Lamona: AfD guidelines say to make decisions based on an article's potential, not on its current status. So, if you think sources exist to improve this article, there would be no reason to delete it. Most of your changes are intact and are appreciated. I removed your unsourced addition, as that was not productive in the midst of an AfD. Also, you had removed content that was added to address the concerns above; that change was not helpful at this time, as it partially invalidated the reason for the extension of the AfD. However, the Talkpage is a perfect place to discuss any questionable content. Nothing is sacred here. My concern is that the latecomers to this discussion are getting caught up on the lede that I quickly added in response to AfD, forgetting or not realizing that this is a list/index article that is part of a series of index articles related to library science and classification. Indexes are not my area of expertise, but they are allowable under Wikipedia's guidelines. Rublamb (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about the table? I removed it because I agree with Lamona's concerns about it in addition to the fact that it violates WP:NOTCATALOG [in my edit summary: I cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE]. Logoshimpo (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correct place to voice those concerns and that does merit consideration. However, since the list and the two directional sentences you removed were the entire" article at the start of the AfD, you inadvertently overrode the opinions the editors participating in this AfD. As this is a stand-alone list article, the list is its the main component. Rublamb (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your concerns about the table and was reverted too. Logoshimpo (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logoshimp: As I have already explained on your talkpage, your change was reverted because you deleted the entire article (table and intro), as it existed at the time of the AfD. Please consult AfD guidelines concerning unilateral removal of an article under an AfD. Whether or not the comparison table merits inclusion in Wikipedia is what this AfD is about.Rublamb (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have to quote the specific guideline concerning unilateral removal of an article under an AfD as I did no such thing. I don't mince words so I'll quote Lamona's concern here: "there is no reason to have a gigantic table in the article when the same info can be found elsewhere (and recorded in "external sources") 2) both of these classifications change, albeit not rapidly, but the table here will get out of date whereas ones at LoC and/or OCLC will not". Logoshimpo (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems fixable. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability of the subject no longer is in doubt, with academic sourcing on the subject. There is considerable dispute related to NOR and NOTINDISCRIMINATE. I am sympathetic to WP:TNT arguments for content that is so unencyclopedic as to require deletion but in this instance I find it difficult to justify deletion on those grounds. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trupeer

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

None of the cited sources pass WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. Most of the cited sources come under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compare and Recycle

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

None of the cited sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Piddling notability judging by the sources. Metallurgist (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lust for Life (Lana Del Rey album). ✗plicit 14:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change (Lana Del Rey song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. No notability outside of album reviews. The article is also poorly sourced, mostly relying on Facebook and Instagram links. Sricsi (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Sricsi (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is not kept, please restore the redirect to Lust for Life (Lana Del Rey album) instead of deleting the page and article history altogether. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lust for Life (Lana Del Rey album): Fails WP:NSONG. Unregistered Biohazard! 15:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lust for Life (Lana Del Rey album): No WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:NSONG. मल्ल (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Neutron transport#Computer codes used in neutron transport. A redirect of course follows after relevant content has been merged to the target. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time-dependent neutronics and temperatures

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

Two sentence page on a computer code with no obvious notability, fails WP:NSOFT. Notability was tagged in 2012; PROD, PROD2 Aug 12-13 2025, at that time the page had no sources. Notability was contested with the claim "Further easy-to-read articles are available using Google Scholar", and PROD/PROD2 removed. Contestor added one source that is not specific to the topic -- it describes a code comparison, not the code. That source is cited 2 times. The current article is advertising/promo for the code and the authors, and would be better included as a sentence in Neutron transport#Computational methods. If major WP:HEY is done to show that this code has major uses in ongoing reactor design I would retract the nomination. I do not see sufficient coverage on Google Scholar to merit retaining it. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, Physics, and Software. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the page Neutron transport#Computer codes used in neutron transport lists 33 computer codes, 2 of which (MCNP & Serpent (software)) have pages with 17 and 5 sources respectively. This code is only mentioned in the "See Also".Ldm1954 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far, I haven't had much luck finding sources that talk about this software as a thing, rather than mentioning how they used it for a particular problem. I don't think that's enough to merit an article. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everyone knows that we have never published original research such as this. There are many other places, but not us. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - responding to Ldm1954's comments:

First, my "further easy-to-read articles are available using Google Scholar" comment was meant to be humorous; a quick look at the neutron transport equation shows neutron flux calculations are mathematically vexatious which is why multiple computer codes have been developed. At least they sure were vexatious to me many years ago.

I don't know if this code is used much now for reactor design; high-temperature gas-cooled reactors are not a hot research area now compared to other reactor types. There's just one HGTR design, the Xe-100, among the several dozen new reactor designs under development. All the papers that use this code were published a while ago when computers were slower; I'd hope HGTR engineers are using something newer nowadays. That said, our rules don't require this code be in wide use now to be notable; if something was once notable, it still is now.

The paper I cited^[38] is relevant; it compares this code to a newer code. This and other papers^{[39][40][41][42]} demonstrate this was a widely used program.

I don't have a dog in this fight; I just look at the article, the AfD and the information that's out there and check them against our rules.

All this said, I concede not in the same league technically as Ldm1954 (Laurence D. Marks) so I may be wrong about this one. It took a lot of work to understand neutron transport years ago and I've forgotten the details since. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B., as a quick clarification, this page was tagged for both notability and no sources since at least 2013. You removed the notability tag on August 13 2025, so WP:NOTTEMPORARY does not apply here. Checking the 4 sources you provided, on Google Scholar their citation numbers are 8, 5, 5, 8. Sorry, but those numbers are not strong indicators that the scientific community has considered this code to be notable. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: to be fully WP:NPOV, a Google Scholar search on TINTE code does find a few better cited papers, including this one with 95 cites. However, that is not a big number. It can be compared to MCNP where the main paper has 3697 cites. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article was prevously PROD'd so a Soft deletion is not possible and we need to hear from more editors. I'm also not sure if A.B. is arguing for a Keep but they know Wikipedia as much as anyone so I assume they would have stated this fact if it was their stance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, thanks for the compliment about my wiki-savvy; if only I was still as nuclear engineering savvy, I'd be more helpful. My comment was not a keep but rather a clarifying response to Ldm1954's remarks about my PROD removal. I've since found a book on high temperature gas reactors that uses TINTE and I'm going to study it. For now, I'm inclined to say TINTE qualifies as notable but from an editorial standpoint, we may be better served putting it in the list at Neutron transport#Computer codes used in neutron transport, then redirecting it there. I like redirects and lists since they help densify our content for easier maintenance without giving up much content. I realize this is still not an answer for you but it's where I'm at now.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neutron transport#Computer codes used in neutron transport.4meter4 (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note, as Ldm1954 pointed out, that the Neutron transport page only mentions TINTE in its See also section, potentially making a merge-less redirect problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX, that is not a problem. We would remove the See Also and add TINTE to the existing list of codes with a ref. I am OK with a merge+redirect. I think A. B. may be OK with that from his comments, and perhaps Bearian? Ldm1954 (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- A merge and redirect is appropriate for original content. Bearian (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge and redirect per Ldm1954. I'm sorry I didn't get time to review the HGTR book but I think this will work fine. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect for now per above. This could almost certainly be a reasonable short article forever, but it'll take someone with the time and energy to dig out and build it. For now merge. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alliantgroup

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Most of the cited sources are routine WP:CORPTRIV, blogs, or PR. Gheus (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heidrick & Struggles

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

Coverage is mostly about its co-founder, John E. Struggles [43], who is likely notable but the company he co-founded is not yet notable. Also, the company is continously hiring UPEs to add marketing content (User:Igorsdom, User:Tristancr) so it is difficult for a volunteer project to maintain such an article. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fiskville, Indiana

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

This appears to be a neighborhood on the north side of Crawfordsville which may have been built separately and then annexed. The only source that appeared to have much info on it didn't allow me to see enough to fully understand it. There was a school here which apparently came first, but again I can't tell that for sure. Anyway, this is not looking like it was a separate town that was engulfed. Mangoe (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to insignificance and lack of reliable sources. Both texts, 1 and 2, briefly mention Fiskville's school and its annexation, but it's just not enough for a standalone article. Fiskville can possibly be mentioned in the Crawfordsville or Montgomery articles instead. — Staniu lis ✿ 01:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crawfordsville, Indiana per 4meter4. I definitely should have considered WP:ATD. However, I do not believe there is enough content or available sources that would allow this article to be kept in its current state. — Lis^talk 16:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Walkerton Independent https://newspapers.library.in.gov/?a=d&d=WLKI19100408.1.3&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN------- Volume 35, Number 43, Walkerton, St. Joseph County, 8 April 1910, says "The incorporated towns of Englewood, Fiskville, Highland and Longview, suburbs to this city, were made a part of Crawfordsville when the ..." So that means that Fiskville was once a properly incorporated town, which is enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not impressed by the new source, which states the area was annexed into Crawfordsville and literally nothing else. Incorporation is not enough for notability; the rule is that "populated, legally-recognized places are presumed notable". We still have to have something to say about the place; just saying it was incorporated and sat at X location is little more than clutter. I've been wrong about these deletions before so if more sources are found ping me. (If kept, the first of the two sentences needs to be rewritten to remove "unincorporated community"...if it's entirely within an incorporated city, that pretty much is the definition of "neighborhood", isn't it?) WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain, and update the content per the source. Or redirect to Crawfordsville, Indiana and add to that article information on the annexation of the town into Crawfordsville per WP:ATD. At the very least this shows it is a possible search term and a straight deletion isn't appropriate.4meter4 (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain, but a merge into Crawfordsville wouldnt be terrible. Metallurgist (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would also keep but expanding/merging into Crawfordsville to also cover the other towns annexed in 1910 also has merit. I added a 1898 map of Fiskville to the article and some more cites. The annexation cites do suggest Fiskville was incorporated but I'm not sure that's true; it may have been just some of the other incorporated towns.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turleys, Indiana

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

Searching is masked by, of all things, an obsolete apple variety, but the only legitimate hit I found was in a shipping directory, as it is a spot on the railroad. Mangoe (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even a post office? Metallurgist (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable geographic area which fails to need an article without more of anything really. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IViz Security

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

Contains unreferenced/promotional content Schtiapht (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Schtiapht (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails in WP:NCORP. Svartner (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software, Karnataka, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being acquired seems to be the only noteworthy event in the company history. Brandon (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments by others and Bearian in particular where this group is not notable as is and fails WP:NCORP. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. No rationale relating to notability provided for redirecting while the keeps are well-reasoned, which makes consensus rather clear here. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashoka the Hero

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

Animated film with no claim to notability - BEFORE brings up routine listings and announcements but no discussion or profesional reviews. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 10:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and India. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 10:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Indian animated films#Feature films – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was leaning redirect, but am now keep as one of the sources notes it is the first animated superhero film in India. I think that would satisfy WP:NFIC. The lack of other language articles does concern me a bit, given how proliferate Hindi contributors are. Metallurgist (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Redirect per Svartner or Keep per Metallurgist. Deletion does not seem necessary. - E. Ux 09:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Has 2 reliable reviews and has unique notability as per Mettalurgist. DareshMohan (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments on film background and what reporting has deemed make it stand out as a first which is further supportive of WP:NFIC. I always prefer a redirect or keep whenever possible as I tend to lean inclusionist versus deletionist and this is preferred as a WP:ATD. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has two reviews - one from a place that is considered to be a RS per WP:ICTFSOURCES and the other is from a reviewer who has reviewed for notable, RS media outlets. That is enough to pass NFILM. As far as the claims of being first goes, that's something that is really only notable if there's coverage, however that's kind of a moot point since we do have coverage to pass NFILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Horner (director)

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Arizona, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant reference--Imtisig (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable "scenic designer" which fails WP:GNG without more meat on the bone here. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CDBurnerXP

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources for verification. Cassiopeia talk 09:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 09:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This program was quite popular as an alternative to Nero and Alcohol 120 in the 2000s [44]. I think the article is valid as a historical record. Svartner (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Popular dos not equal to meet the Wikipedia GNG guidelines. They are 2 different things. Cassiopeia talk 22:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviews by TechRadar: [45], PC World: [46], c't magazine: [47], Articles by PCNET (Turkish magazine): [48], [49], [50]. I didn't check all 352 hits on archive.org, there could be more but those should be enough for notability. --Mika1h (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mika's source layout, passes WP:GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Brandon (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pajeet

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)

Largely trivial coverage in sources (RS or otherwise), fails WP:SIGCOV for notability esecially for a racial slur like this. The exact article (with the same sources) has been repeatedly created from a redirect by the singular WP:LTA sock network Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial ([51], [52], [53], [54]) whose intentions have been nothing more than racist trolling ([55], [56]). The article itself has only served as a racist troll magnet whenever it has been repeatedly created ([57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66]). Edit: And 20 more accounts have just been banned for disruption related to the article since this AfD has been up ([67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88] and 12 more).

Coming to the sources (currently/previously at the article/Talk):

These largely appear to be non-WP:RS: thecommunemag.com (a repost of another non-RS samvadaworld.com), hindupost.in, hindutimescanada.ca (all of these are also merely press releases of the NCRI report); Know Your Meme (WP:KNOWYOURMEME, a deprecated source), townpost.in (plagiarizes the entire DFRAC article), baaznews.org (a Substack blog)
Of unsure reliability: The Daily Pennsylvanian (student newspaper with a single para on the term), ohpi.org.au (Online Hate Prevention Institute (lists no author), just a brief mention of a related racist term 'mujeet'), dfrac.org (DFRAC is apparently a fact-checking website (unsure if it is RS), does cover the term beyond trivial mentions), Center for the Study Of Organized Hate (an op-ed by Rohit Chopra), Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (single-line description of the term, rest of the article merely lists disparate usages by extremists online)
RS: The New Indian Express (single-line mention), isdglobal.org (Institute for Strategic Dialogue, brief mentions of the term but mostly about the Canadian hate group Diagolon), the NCRI report on Hinduphobia (does cover the usage of the term beyond trivial mentions), another NCRI report on the 2022 Leicester unrest (trivial mentions of the term online).

We ultimately have very few RS which cover the term in any significant capacity, a standalone article as such cannot really be justified (nothing which can't be/isn't already covered at List of ethnic slurs). The slur is no different from more older ones (e.g. 1, e.g. 2) whose standalone articles we do not feature for similar reasons. Gotitbro (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Ethnic groups, Hinduism, Sikhism, India, Canada, Australia, United States, United Kingdom. Gotitbro (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep certainly a known slogan, worth keeping, there are way more slogans on Wikipedia too
Probnothing (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per nominator's own admission that this term finds non trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources such as the NCRI report on Hinduphobia, Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and DFRAC. These three sources provide in-depth coverage required for the article, see WP:THREE. Koshuri ^(あ!) 09:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
THREE is a personal essay (really the first time I am seeing it at AfD). Though I would like to clarify that I haven't listed DFRAC as RS nor have I listed ISD as non-trivial. That you have cited stable while restoring the largely socked version of the article is concerning. Gotitbro (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THREE is only to back my point that in most cases only three reliable sources with in-depth coverage are enough to prove notability. Your continued disparagement of the article's stable version as sock despite it being restored and responsibility for the content being taken by multiple editors in good standing is getting tendentious. Koshuri ^(あ!) 10:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one has taken "responsibility for the content", Altenmann initially restored the article [89]/[90] the article (also saying refs were a plenty which as can be seen were really just trivial bloat) and was clearly unaware of sock shenanigangs. The restoration was imediately challenged twice by different editors [91], [92] but ultimately restored again by you [93] telling editors to take it to AfD. None of this would be considered WP:STABLE. Why would you revert apparent sock cleanup is also beyond me.

Coming to THREE, a user essay which has been neither satisfied nor a standalone article based on these justified. Nothing we can't handle at the pre-existing list. Gotitbro (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable term as per the sources mentioned above. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of ethnic slurs#P or Delete (in that order of preference): Fails WP:SIGCOV. There is currently no scholarly source at all that discusses the subject. Coverage so far is limited to mostly low-quality sources. There is also precedence per "curry-m*ncher" being redirect to the list article and "d*t head" not existing. The fact that article was written primarily by a sock-farm (with seven year long history of socking), who misrepresented even the already questionable sources and quickly added the slur to a WP:BLP only shows the bad-faith disruption. The tendency of some editors to prefer that source-misrepresented sock version is also beyond me. Given the obsessive preoccupation that the longtime sock has with the slur, I expect a visit by him here as well eventually. --UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that sourcing must be scholarly for establishing the notability of a term, regardless there is enough scholarly coverage for this article . "Curry muncher" and "dothead" are little known and were never used widely unlike the term "Pajeet". So quoting them as "precedence" is a non argument. The rest of your argument is nothing more than the same disparagement of the article for being created by a sock and bad faith assumptions. Koshuri ^(あ!) 14:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, scholarly sources are not necessary for notability (the subject fails notability regardless of the lack of any meaningful scholarship on it) but scholarly sources give the most reliable information, which the article and indeed the term currently largely lacks. As for curry-m*ncher being "little known and were never used widely unlike the term Pajeet", that is simply false. For one, we have multiple scholarly sources for it: Tom Dalzell; Terry Victor, eds. (2006), The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, Routledge, p. 534; Virtual Homelands: Indian Immigrants and Online Cultures in the United States, University of Illinois Press, 2014, p. 29; Anne Collett; Leigh Dale, eds. (2018), Postcolonial Past & Present, BRILL, p. 174 and many, many more scholarly as well as literary usages. Asserting otherwise is stretching the limits of WP:OR, which unsurprisingly is also what the sock version of the article mostly was. We don't reward specific slur-obsessed socks by going against precedence and sourcing guidelines. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have similar articles like Paki (slur), American-born confused desi, etc more. Pajeet is a popular term across social media and sources are well notable (per argument by other Keep votes). But I agree this article must be improved and rephrased to Good Faith.. It shouldn't be used for trolling as like the sock editor. The current version seems stable enough but the more good faith & neutral, the more better to keep the article. WinKyaw (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The former is well attested in RS [per its article], the latter is not a slur (and also well attested). "Popular term across social media" raises questions on the kind of social media being referred to [we are not a documentation hub for 4chan and X bigots] rather than as a rationale for notability. Gotitbro (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well here in this category, I see lots of similar articles. Nothing much wrong with this being existing. And popular term across social media is for all medias especially Facebook, Instagram, X & so on.

Mainly I think if Pallywood, Locust (ethnic slur), Polaco (slur), Wetback (slur), etc can exist, there's nothing wrong with this article too! WinKyaw (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pallywood has sources published by Sussex Academic Press, Routledge, Journal of Communication, Third World Quarterly and many other similar academic sources. Polaco and Wetback have similar academic sourcing. This article lacks any comparable sources, thus the comparison is faulty. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whether the article was created by a sock or not is irrelevant given the subject meets WP:GNG. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The term is inaccurate, but quite widespread colloquially. Svartner (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely used internet slur that has persisted for some time. Metallurgist (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been considerably improved in good faith and as per @Ratnahastin WP:SIGCOV has been sufficiently addressed.

I must say, it is of interesting note that a user has just been blocked for vandalizing the article as we are actively discussing this.. Eulersidentity (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but modify,¹ maybe?

It seems, (a), that it is not in dispute that there are RSeseses that cover the term (regardless of "uncertain" or dispreferred source coverage as well); and, (b), that the given reasons for deletion aren't very strong—"created by a sock" & "has been vandalized" don't necessarily have any bearing on an article's quality/significance.

In re the "argument from (lack of) other articles": I'm not sure we want to lean too heavily on this yardstick—when is the answer "delete this one too, then", and when "well then, someone needs to start making the others"?—but, that said: I think "dot-head" was probably much more common than "pajeet" until, like, the 2020s at least (though may be wrong about that)... and yet the former probably doesn't need an article to itself; that's surely more the proper fodder for a lexicon or dictionary of some kind, rather than an encyclopedia.

So—I guess that if the RS coverage for this new(?) "p-word" consists merely of "glossary of slurs in 2025" articles / brief "here's the meaning of this term you've seen recently!" click-grist / etc., then that might add some weight to the "Delete" option; conversely, if the sources mostly tend to engage in some sort of discussion of the zeitgeist, or whatever, and tie something therefrom to the term—i.e., include more than just "this term exists! here's what it means!"—that's points for the "Keep" side.

¹: I think I saw someone on the Talk page arguing that the article didn't include proper "contextualization", which (in the user's estimation, or IIRC) would involve explaining that other groups have been the recipients of similar abuse in the past.

On one hand, my initial reaction to this claim was suspicion—like, "hold on, do other such articles need to inform the reader of the history regarding yet other largely unrelated terms?" ("...and anyway, surely everyone already knows that such terms have a long & ignoble history, right?")—but (on t'other hand): I can see an argument for "usage of slurs in general" being within the "contextual diameter" of the article.

(...and, shockingly, quite often it turns out that "everyone" doesn't actually know very much at all–)

Upshot, anyway: perhaps if such "contextualization" of the term was added to the article, everyone would be happy...?

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The term "Pajeet" is highly notable and has received in-depth coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources:
In a case study by Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University, this term is covered extensively, with almost entire study revolving around it. 33 mentions of the slur , along with his history, usage, variants etc all are covered over several pages.[94]
In a report by Rohit Chopra, Professor in the Department of Communication at Santa Clara University and Visiting Scholar at the Center for South Asia at Stanford University, the term is covered extensively and it is published by the Centre of study of organized hate[95]
Non trivial coverage in a report by Institute for Strategic Dialogue [96]
Extensive coverage in DFRAC , an IFCN certified fact checker. This report covers the origin, and history of the term along with analysis of its usage on social media. [97]
Significant coverage in a Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE) study [98]

Enough to prove that this term is highly notable and has received scholarly attention. It has also been used as an insult against various public figures of Indian origin in the west as well and there is ample news coverage for that, but I won't be citing that. Ratnahastin (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The review of sources in the nomination is appalling. With your logic, we can reject any sources such as CNN ("they are favorable to Democrats"), Oxford University press ("they are situated in the mainland of colonial British empire") or any other source. Sikhpride38 (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, entirely apalling that we don't consider thecommunemag.com (samvadaworld.com), hindupost.in, hindutimescanada.ca, Know Your Meme, townpost.in, baaznews as RS nor trivial mentions of the term. None of the rationale that you cite has been given above. Interesting that an account, with only 11 edits, that hasn't edited in 3 years suddenly pops up at an AfD and then proceeds to revert SPA tags. Gotitbro (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is defending unreliable sources like Hindupost ans Communemag. You are doubting credibility of even DFRAC, Online Hate Prevention Institute, The Daily Pennsylvanian and other reliable sources. According to your logic, there can be no reliable sources. Sikhpride38 (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For DFRAC, I could not find any independent coverage of it as a source beyond media reposts of its 'fact-checks', the Online Hate Prevention Institute lacks a byline and has a single-line mention of the term, The Daily Pennsylvanian is a student newspaper with barely anything to say about the term. Hence, under unsure reliability. These are not the sources that you want to be hedging notability on.

I will note that you have repeatedly reverted the SPA tag added by different editors, very COI. Gotitbro (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I refuse to defend myself against a mischaracterization? Looks like you don't understand what is a "COI". Back to the actual topic, you are just proving the point that every source would seem unreliable if we used your logic. The Daily Pennsylvanian is used in 100s of Wikipedia article.[99] Sikhpride38 (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Pennsylvanian: Usage elsewhere at enwiki has no bearing on why student newspapers should be cited in the first place, lacks sigcov anyhow.

Conflict of interest is removing tags added by uninvolved editors in a contentious topic space. Does not help that a new user with barely a few edits is well versed with AfDs, SPA and COI. I further wonder why you think this is neutral, seemingly furthering racist tropes without any balance. Gotitbro (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The term is very notable and has widespread usage. Also, Gotitbro and UnpetitproleX, stop WP:BLUDGEONING. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 04:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have only responded to some editors about clarifications for the nom statement, ridiculous to call this BLUDGEON. Gotitbro (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV, not notable. And the socking and apparent WP:STEALTH canvassing put it over the top for me. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 17:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced and well written. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reading discussions here (and at talk page) and also references, this seems to be primarily an internet insult/meme. Few searches shows that the source coverage is very limited. Chopra's op-ed has some analysis as a scholar, but it is still an opinion piece published in an advocacy center (rather than e.g. an academic journal). A standalone article gives undue weight to a social-media insult and per WP:NOT, wikipedia is not for indiscriminate details. Asteramellus (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of ethnic slurs#P or Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV.Halbared (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This only shows you haven't read the cited sources. Wareon (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reliable sources mentioned by Ratnahastin. Easily meets WP:GNG. Wareon (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG, the sources presented are more than enough. I also always disagree with the notion that a disruptive editor's articles should be blown up, if they actually have constructive edits/articles. jolielover♥talk 18:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to list of ethnic slurs - Going against the tide here, but while I see mentions in several places, I'm having trouble finding much in depth coverage of the word-as-subject, going beyond a WP:DICDEF (i.e. it is a slur, it's associated with 4chan, here's how it's used, here's a list of times people have used it, sometimes it's been used about X and sometimes it's been used about Y). I'm seeing exactly two sources which go into any real depth: this NCRI report and this CSOH blog post. Both WP:SPS, but reliable SPS (written by experts for reputable organizations). For an article about a slur where we wind up in a gray area of notability, I think it's prudent to err on the side of not trying to have a full article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an extremely well sourced and known slur. As many others have already stated, this should definitely be kept and it is so notable that WP:NOTDICT does not apply here. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per quick scan of sources provided by @Ratnahastin Cononsense (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judgement Records

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

Non-notable record label, does meet WP:MUSIC/companies, unreferenced since 2004. Also potentially written as WP:PROMOTION Coldupnorth (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 08:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable record label. Fails WP:NCOMPANY and WP:NMUSIC.--Imtisig (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find sources discussing the label itself at length. The article is misleading because it mainly discusses Ruffhouse Records. From what I can piece together, Judgement's only achievements were a handful of singles from non-notable acts and a never realised fourth Kris Kross album [100]. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any evidence of cultural significance (NMUSIC#5), so therefore NCORP is an appropriate guideling, which this fails to meet through lack of significant independent reliable sources available. Most importantly, it fails WP:WHYN, insofar as I don't think it's possible to write an informative article of any use to readers based on available reliable sourcing. This is a poor attempt at inherited notability per Vladimir.copic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable record company which fails WP:NCOMPANY as the sources that are findable do not establish enough to be kept. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Borgwardt

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

A brief disappearance, albeit an elaborately staged one, but it is WP:BLP1E essentially. The verdict from the court case is pretty telling as to its notability, just a day of jail for each day he disappeared. – robertsky (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and United States of America. – robertsky (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (country) and Wisconsin. jolielover♥talk 08:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Classic WP:BLP1E. This is an otherwise completely unremarkable individual whom the world knew nothing about prior to this incident. Faking one's death happens hundreds of times per year.¹ I fail to see any reason to keep an article about this person when everything indicates the only reason we know about him is this one event. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely agree that this "individual that faked his death" for various supposed reasons is indeed "classic BLP1E" and not otherwise notable for anything. Delete it. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hammersoft. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to HP-UX without prejudice against selective merge. Unresolved talk page discussions about the title can be worked out at the talk page. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Performance FileSystem

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep: with WP:NPASR. Drive-by nomination with no evidence of WP:BEFORE; nominator has previously been warned for nominating without evidence of BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC) Striking since !vote is now mooted by below discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article makes no attempt to provide sources meeting GNG, and the topic has had no academic coverage and no coverage in textbooks of any kind. The topic can be briefly mentioned with the source at HP-UX, though if so, the disputed title (unresolved talk page discussion since 2 years ago) should be resolved. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to HP-UX. The article title is indeed misspelled. It's supposed to be "High Performance File System" (hyphen optional). Searching that yields several secondary sources, though not much since it's by most accounts a faithful clone of UFS without much in the way of proprietary modification. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FK Šaca

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article only contains own website as a source. Czech article linked through Wikidata doesn't confer notability. Team seems to be defunct and only lists age groups up to under-19 at [101]. C 679 07:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Slovakia. C 679 07:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No IRS SIGCOV at all. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Lacks WP:SIGCOV and only played up to the 3rd level of Slovak football. Svartner (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough content and valid source. Santoshsah4 (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable club which fails WP:SIGCOV entirely. Not looking likely to change any time soon either. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvesh Singh

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; sourcing insufficient and non-independent. EmilyR34 (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and Uttar Pradesh. EmilyR34 (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EmilyR34, Thank you for reviewing this article and sharing your concerns. I understand the importance of ensuring that biographies meet WP:GNG and are supported by independent, reliable sources. With that in mind, I’d like to point out some of the coverage that, in my view, establishes notability for the subject:

Keep – Respectfully disagree with the concern about insufficient sourcing. Multiple independent, reliable sources provide significant coverage:
- The Tribune (24 April 2025) ran a feature profile on Marichi Ventures and Singh’s leadership philosophy, which goes beyond a passing mention.
- The Economic Times (27 June 2024) covered his recognition at the ET Excellence Awards, establishing notability at a national level.
- Express Pharma (5 June 2019) listed him as a featured speaker at a DIA India conference, showing industry recognition.

Together, these demonstrate WP:GNG is satisfied. Additional coverage from FTCCI and Kalkine Media further supports verifiability. AbhiTron143977 (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Tribune coverage is very thin and tells us very little about the subject. This is not significant coverage.
Economic Times clearly says the article is "advertorial" and is not independent.
Express Pharma is a short mention of the subject that does not meet the definition of significant coverage.

— 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose in this discussion whether you have a conflict of interest, in accordance with the guidelines for Articles for Deletion. In addition, your reply has elements that suggest that you may be using a Large Language Model to generate your comments. If that is the case, you are strongly discouraged from continuing. See the essay WP:LLMTALK and the policy WP:AITALK. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your feedback pacific depths, do you have any suggestions for me, i don't want this page to be deleted, i do acknowledge the fact that some of the existing sources are advertorial or limited in depth, i am currently searching for strong independent coverage such as national newspaper or business magazines to strengthen the article. can a redirect to Marichi Ventures be a better alternative if such coverage cannot be demonstrated, I'm open to any suggestions. AbhiTron143977 (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello pacific depths, I’ve been able to add stronger references from independent institutions, like PHUSE (the world’s largest healthcare data science non-profit) published Singh’s reflections on his work as Asia-Pacific Director, and the Indian Institute of Population Sciences reported in detail on a pre-placement talk he delivered as Novartis Head of Strategy & Operations and PHUSE board member. I understand that not every source will count as “significant coverage,” but I believe these additions show recognition by independent and credible bodies, not just company PR. I also want to be transparent:- I do have a connection here, but I’m trying to stick to verifiable, reliable sources so the article stands or falls on policy grounds, not promotion. If this is still not enough for a standalone page, then, I’m open to a redirect to Marichi Ventures, so the information is preserved in context. AbhiTron143977 (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that this does not meet WP:GNG. The sources mentioned are of low quality. For example, the Economic Times article is actually marked as 'advertorial'; The Tribune feature reads like the information was provided by Marichi Ventures; and although I cannot read the Kalkine Media piece, its headline matches the Abluva Inc press release exactly, so it is most likely to be a reprint of that, rather than genuine reporting. Mark Gould (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback Mark Goud. I do agree that the article published in the Economic Times is advertorial in nature and not so independent, and i also with your apprehension that the article in the Tribune could sound promotional, and that the reprinting of the press release is most likely to be that of Kalkine Media. Still, some independent coverage is worth mentioning: e.g., that in June 2019, Singh was listed by "Express Pharma" as a featured speaker at the DIA India conference, and appears in the Leadership Development Program faculty of FTCCI. Although I know that these probably are not sufficient to meet the full requirements of WP:GNG, I am still searching more of them. AbhiTron143977 (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello mark, i've been able to add stronger references from independent institutions like PHUSE and Indian Institute of population Sciences reported in detail. please check the article and please tell me if its enough, if not, i'm open to any suggestions AbhiTron143977 (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the hard work you are putting into this, Abhiram. However, the additional sources still don't persuade me that Singh is notable beyond being exceptionally good at his job. Nothing we have seen so far suggests that he meets any of the three criteria in WP:ANYBIO. Mark Gould (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, lacks significant independent coverage, largely promotional. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:PROMO article. Svartner (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is written and the failure of WP:SIGCOV about this figure. Might also be WP:PROMO too. Though a promo piece could still be notable independent of the COI, but this guy is not.. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Pacific and Southern Tower

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

This article, while probably proddable, is intimately related to the Citicasters tower, so it belongs here with it. It also is even more cryptic than the Citicasters one. You'll learn more about this tower from my description here than you will from reading this article. It was built in 1979 for WTSP, which is the logical place for any information about it. Fybush indicates it was indeed dismantled, which makes sense, because WTSP moved sites upon the digital TV transition. (Also, ASR records agree on it being dismantled.) This article helps nobody. It is poorly named after an obscure license subsidiary of then-Gannett, now-Tegna (one that has been replaced with Tegna East Coast Broadcasting); provides no indication of the use of this tower; and has no standalone notability. Our readers are better served finding tower information in WTSP. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Engineering, and Florida. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 07:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree on the lack of notability, sigcov, etc. Zsinj^Talk 02:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 00:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Focus (Slovenian political party)

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

It does not currently meet the notability criteria of WP:ORG and it is too new to demonstrate sustained notability - The9Man ^Talk 07:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Slovenia. - The9Man ^Talk 07:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As far as I have been able to research, the party is significantly covered by multiple English-language sources—including the English versions of RTVSLO, The Slovenia Times and Slovenian Press Agency—from November 2024 ([102]), January 2025 ([103] [104] [105] [106] [107]) and April 2025 ([108]). It has also routinely appeared in some opinion polls since November 2024 until now. Plus, its leader and founder is the current president of the upper house of the Slovenian parliament.

Granted, the sources, while can be argued to be reliable, independent and secondary, are Slovenian-based (even if in English). It also gets covered in China-CEE ([109]), but together with other new Slovenian parties (and I am not sure about the nature of the source). And the party's results in opinion polls are not impressive. This is why my keep is "weak", but I think the party passes the notability threshold, even if barely. Impru20^talk 20:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or probably draftify as TOOSOON. The only SIGCOV I actually see is from its founding January, and I've searched Slovenian sources. The April English source is clearly a mere mention. I don't think this is ripe yet. SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

06:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ørjan Nilsen with {{r from album}} tag added. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In My Opinion

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

The article currently only has one citation that being a non-independent WP:PRIMARYSOURCE to the album's record label Armada Music. [110]

I searched Google News to see if there were any WP:INDEPENDENT, reliable sources that have significant coverage on the album (Note that Google Books and Scholar brought up nothing when I searched for this album). And all I found were a few sources, all of which mention the album in passing while the main focus is on Nilsen himself: [111] [112] [113] [114][115]

With the complete lack of WP:Independent reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV, article fails WP:NMG and does not warrant an article, so it should be deleted or redirected to Nilsen's page instead. Cacophonic peace (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Norway. Cacophonic peace (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ørjan Nilsen: Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM criteria. Nil🥝 06:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term is a bit ambiguous Geschichte (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh, I'm surprised that it doesn't have a disam like (album), or that there's not a more notable subject with this name. In any case, {{R from album}} seems like a sensible AtD unless something else pops up. Nil🥝 02:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above Metallurgist (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Brandon (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morningside Records

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Denmark. toweli (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a Politiken article about the record label's closure: Indie-pladeselskab lukker og slukker. toweli (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No SIGCOV hits so far in my searches as well, did also find something about the subject' s closing to note.Lorraine Crane (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nothing is coming up in English. The Politiken article is solid. Sources for this will definitely be in Danish, and may, like the Politiken article, be behind paywalls.4meter4 (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is a 2nd Politiken article on them - https://politiken.dk/kultur/art4910636/Undergrunds-festival-i-%C3%85rhus; those 2 articles seem to be all that comes up in a search. - Indefensible (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lemis

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:NARTIST. Svartner (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify – so far no SIGCOV in my searches so far, did check in to its other language available, unsure if any of these are SIGCOV as not as familiar in that language's local news, however based on a 1st impressions seems to stil not be enough to suggest notability, to be fair the brief websearch does have a lot of hits on the subject, so not opposed to drafitify as possible ATD.Lorraine Crane (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several notable news articles (1, 2, 3, 4, ) justify the notability. --Afifa Afrin (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article 2, 3, and 4 contain the same information of publishing of a new music on Youtube, full of puffery and qoutation of the artist indicating these are paid news or press releases. The Thikana news contains different story but still promoting the subject. Clearly, none of these are independent of the subject, hence unreliable and fails to demonstrate notability of the subject. Rht bd (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. She does get coverage in Bangladeshi mainstream press, such as this interview in The Daily Star. I get the impression she is a well known singer in Bangladesh but the sourcing is almost all interviews or puffery. This is a reflection of the state of media in this part of the world. It can be very difficult to locate independent coverage; even on well known people. There's enough here for me to give pause. I cannot say for certain she isn't notable. I also cannot say she definitively meets GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think her Bangla article https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B8 has enough sourcing, the quality is not great but in borderline cases we should lean towards inclusion rather than draw the line to cut them out per 4meter4. - Indefensible (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Brandon (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smithfield Hog Production Division

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

While Smithfield Foods is undeniably notable but its production unit may not meet the criteria of independent significance and this alone may not establish notability. 🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 05:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Management, Products, China, Germany, United States of America, California, Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia. 🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 05:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I offer no opinion or comment on the article itself at this time (beyond noting there has been a UPE tag on it since 2021), I did want to note that the nominator is presumably referring to Smithfield Foods (rather than the Smithfield disambiguation page) should anyone propose anything in that direction. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! Thanks for update.🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 23:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Animal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a hog, so to speak. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hart, John Fraser (2003). The Changing Scale of American Agriculture. Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press. pp. 201–209. ISBN 0-8139-2229-1. Retrieved 2025-09-01 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "In 1989 Dennis Harms and Tad Gordon formed Premium Standard Farms (PSF) and started to develop one of the nation's largest hog farms in Mercer, Putnam, and Sullivan counties in north-central Missouri. They were a good team. Harms had worked in the feed business and knew how to raise hogs on a large scale. Gordon had been a securities trader on Wall Street and knew how to raise money on a large scale. Initially Harms and Gordon had hoped to develop a 1,000-sow farrowing farm west of Ames, Iowa. They planned to contract with local farmers to finish their hogs, but local opposition was so strong that they were not able to obtain the permits they needed, so they dropped the lowa project and moved across the state line into northern Missouri, where they were welcomed. Their northernmost hog farm is so close to Iowa that you can smell it there. ... Missouri had a family farm law prohibiting corporate farms, but the state welcomed PSF by exempting Mercer, Putnam, and Sullivan counties. The company received no other special treatment, no government financing, no subsidies, no waived fees, no streamlined approvals. The only public money it has required was spent on roads during the hectic construction phase in the early 1990s. Harms, Gordon, and other senior executives made their homes in the area, and the company made a special effort to be a good neighbor and a good citizen."
2. Smith, Jonathan Vaughan (November 1999). "Premium Standard Farms and the Transformation of Livestock Geography in Northern Missouri". Southeastern Geographer. Vol. 39, no. 2. University of North Carolina Press. pp. 161–171. doi:10.1353/sgo.1999.0009.
  The article notes: "The purpose of this article is to document how issues of remote corporate ownership, corporate welfarism, obtuseness to small-town and family farm-values, and social and environmental degradation all were handled initially in a creative and geographically perceptive manner by one company, Premium Standard Farms (PSF). The economic, social, and environmental consequences that followed ultimately led to a corporate takeover by Continental Grain and a trend back toward the conventional corporate imagery that PSF had initially eschewed."
3. Joplin, Benjamin A. (1997). "Can Townships Really Smell: Coping with the Malodorous Problems of Hog Farms in Rural Missouri: Premium Standard Farms, Inc. v. Lincoln Township of Putnam County". Missouri Environmental Law & Policy Review. Vol. 5, no. 2. University of Missouri School of Law. Archived from the original on 2024-07-31. Retrieved 2025-09-01.
  The article notes: "In Northwestern Missouri, the town of Princeton embraced the boost Premium Standard Farms (PSF) gave the local economy. Less than 150 miles to the east, the Lincoln Township of Putnam County, Missouri (Lincoln) has put up a fierce battle to PSF' s efforts to remain in the area. Lincoln's battle attracted so much national attention that country singer Willie Nelson brought the annual "Farm Aid" concert to the community in 1995. Since then, PSF has challenged in court the method by which Lincoln sought to restrict PSF' s growth in the township."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Premium Standard Farms to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article previously was at Premium Standard Farms before being moved first to Murphy-Brown of Missouri, LLC and then being moved to the current title Smithfield Hog Production Division. I did a brief search for sources and found the above three sources. There are likely even more sources. There is enough information in these sources to show that the predecessor company Premium Standard Farms is notable. Backed by reliable sources, the Wikipedia article says Premium Standard Farms was the second-largest pork producer and the sixth-largest processor in the United States until Smithfield Foods acquired it in 2007. This strongly establishes the predecessor company's notability. There is enough coverage about the predecessor company's history between its founding in 1988 and the merger in 2013 to support a standalone article and to make it undue weight to merge it into Smithfield Foods. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Cunard's sources and assessment. Would not likely be notable today as a subsidiary but it was notable as a standalone company and notability once gained is not lost. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. ~~Also if the outcome is redirect, the history is not clear because the article says it was acquired by Smithfield in 2007 but later acquired by Shuanghui in 2013.~~ - Indefensible (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ as withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Clemens de Lisle

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

There does not appear to be any significant coverage nor any coverage of her as an architect either. I can't review the book source but it is only one source and assuming that the article accurately represents her coverage then it falls below SIGCOV. It almost feels like an A7 given we have an article on an architect that fails to mention any architectural wok. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. jolielover♥talk 04:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the age of the subject, the majority of sources will be offline.

In a month's time (20th September), there's an edit-a-thon being planned for NZ Women in Architecture, and one of the targeted articles for improvement is this one.

It's probably best to withdraw this AFD until after the edit-a-thon takes place, in case anything of value is uncovered then? Nil🥝 04:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any plan to improve the page at the event (it mentions the article as an example of an existing article but says 'Our focus will be on enriching and creating pages related to Merle Greenwood, Dorothy Wills, Mary Dorothy Edwards, Mary Hay, Marjorie Penty and Nancy Northcroft.'), but if I am willing to delay/withdraw the AfD if someone does plan on taking a look at in within the near future. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not yet able to review the book, and I am unlikely to get to it before the end of next month. However, I have included what I could find from online secondary sources, and I am happy to continue searching and contributing. I have been able to find more about her work as an artist; unfortunately, it is probably not enough for SIGCOV yet. I note that she is now listed on the edit-a-thon page as Mary Clemens de Lisle (I think she was also listed under Mary Hay, her birth name), so I would second the Nil's suggestion of delaying until after that event, if possible. Ewhite31 (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw and re-evaluate it after the event is finished. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for @Nil NZ for mentioning the upcoming edit-a-thon, I will make sure this article gets some attention leading up to and at that event. Thanks @Traumnovelle it would be great to hold off until after the event, as I hope it can be improved by then. @Ewhite31 Thank you! I will also do some research. Winnieswikiworld (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as withdrawn per above. - Indefensible (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per author request. ✗plicit 06:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gerren O'Neill

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

This article fails WP:V and WP:GNG for lack of independent, reliable sources. One source is a press release from his employer and another is a brief, unbylined regurgitated version of the press release in a local Irish paper. The other two sources are WP:USERGENERATED posts on DailyKos ([116], [117]). And none of the sources remotely address the article's claims that O'Neill is a United Nations Human Rights Inspector and Economic Action Officer. Even if being a diplomat were inherently notable (it's not), there's no independent verification here or elsewhere search that O'Neill is a diplomat, and the organization he purports to represent is a federation of nine unrecognized self-proclaimed US indigenous groups. I found no qualifying coverage of O'Neill or this federation in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Northern Ireland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article looks like a piece of self-promotion for an individual who has no real claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find sufficient (or indeed any) reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject so as to meet WP:BIO. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources already described are inadequate to meet WP:BIO. In addition, digging into the description of his work as a UN inspector for "Organizatia pentru Aparatea Drepurilor Omului", this would appear to be a reference to ro:Asociația Pentru Apărarea Drepturilor Omului în România – Comitetul Helsinki. Their site provides no mention of him in that connection, nor does a wider search.

Mark Gould (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per reasons that Dclemens listed. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 23:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vampirina: Teenage Vampire

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

This is an upcoming television series, and so is too soon for an article, and does not satisfy television notability. Nothing in this article describes the third-party significant coverage that is needed to establish general notability. This article was already draftified once, in 2024, so that another unilateral draftification would be move-warring. Draftification may be a valid close of this AFD, but there should be no subsequent move to article space until the series is broadcast and is reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Disney, and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It'a a major-network series with a premiere date in prime time. George Fergus (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why delete it before the show is even released? Cqntralls (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's less than a month to go, idk how that is "too soon" to you. Also, it's a full scale Disney Channel series so is does satisfy television notability.
Coolelvin2 (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An upcoming Disney series. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator claims that the subject lacks the requisite third-party significant coverage, and that aspect has not been meaningfully addressed by other participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it should just be incubated in draft space as premature for now as noted above, but will likely be returned to article space again soon enough, so it's almost like what's the point? Deleting would be pointless for the same reason. Another option is to just kick the can down the road for another 1-2 weeks and then procedural close. - Indefensible (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2025 in Texas#August. Consensus is that while this event was tragic, it's too soon to say whether there will be lasting coverage to ascertain notability, and this redirect is a suitable alternative to deletion. The keep !votes are pile-on at best; AfD is not a straw poll. ^Complex/_Rational 02:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Austin Target shooting

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)

Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, United States of America, and Texas. XYZ1233212 (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~History of Target Corporation#Since 2020~~; I just added a brief paragraph there. This is in accordance with:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion including WP:ATD and WP:ATD-R

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm changing my proposed redirect target; see my 30 August comment below. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A news story, not a subject of sustained secondary analysis. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 in Texas#August. I disagree with A. B.'s proposed redirection and believe that the section dedicated to the shooting in the Target article should be deleted as well. This isn't an instance where a location has its own dedicated article, this is an incident that happened at a single Target store among many stores. The El Paso shooting for instance, is mentioned in the Walmart article because the shooting changed company policy. Raskuly (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:Crime the circumstances of this crime are unusual - suspect claiming to be Jesus and found naked clutching a bible. One of the victim's was transgender so this case is getting discussion in the LGBTQ community and there is criticism of the police for deadnaming & misgendering the victim. I think it is simply too soon to delete the page and perhaps we should wait to see whether on going coverage continues. I believe the unusual circumstances of this shooting make it stand out from other crimes. Inexpiable (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons put forward by @Inexpiable. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons put forward by Inexpiable and Fella942. GoatLord234 (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Raskuly. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons put forward by @Inexpiable. Additionally, the shooter was taken in alive, so this isn't an open-and-shut case like many random shootings. This was a mass casualty event. Fella9421321312231 (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons put forward by @Inexpiable 128.62.72.88 (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to this: to give a similar example, the Eaton Township Weis Markets shooting, which had the same number of casualties, has its own page due to the unusual circumstances of the shooting and the bizarre history of the suspect. I'd say this shooting is equally significant for the same reasons. As the suspect's trial progresses, more info is bound to come out. Fella9421321312231 (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons put forward by @Inexpiable 2605:A601:A0E7:6E00:0:0:0:101D (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons put forward by @Inexpiable. Warmth and safety (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Raskuly Metallurgist (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons put forward by @Inexpiable. Conner.mccollim2008 (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons put forward by @Inexpiable. Trans people will not and should not be erased. 132.147.167.5 (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe I was in favor of redirecting because one of the victims was transgender? Raskuly (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my preferred redirect target to 2025 in Texas#August per Raskuly. As to Inexpiable's point, these bizarre, tragic American shootings are massive aberrations from regular human behavior so it's routine for them to have other random or odd aspects. I don't see this shooting being persistently covered in the news over coming years. I may be wrong; if I am, it's easy to restore the redirect and update the page. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 in Texas#August as the sources are passing and not every event is notable enough of receives significant coverage, Raskuly outlined further specifics as to why a redirect to 2025 in Texas#August is a better WP:ATD over a keep in this instance. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a tragedy, but a routine news story. Secondary choice to redirect to 2025 in Texas#August. This is not a keep !vote. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - did anyone else notice all of the generic "Keep per reasons put forward by @Inexpiable" votes? This looks pretty obviously suspicious. - Indefensible (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orwellian

AfDs for this article:

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

This word should be either redirected to George Orwell or soft-redirected to wikt:Orwellian. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the useful encyclopedic information here can be easily merged to Orwell's biography article if need be. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Arts, Language, Literature, Philosophy, History, Politics, and England. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources used in the article show GNG - they don't just mention the word in passing, they have whole sources around the word and its connotation and significance. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Orwell § Influence on language and writing per WP:NOPAGE at the very least, since pretty much everything here is already there. This doesn't need a separate article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems like an unused neologism. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As much of a deletionist as I consider myself, this isn't a neologism, and it's quite well used. An ngrams search shows the first uses in the 1940s, with generally increasing usage ever since. Not only that, but we actually have sources discussing this as a concept (not just as a word), so I think there's actually worthwhile content here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG, multiple sources in article that directly address the term itself. Additional ones found after a quick search NYT, Vox, USA Today. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But why not redirect as I suggested? It's a mere paragraph, and there's just not that much to say about it outside the context of Orwell's biography generally. And indeed, this content is already there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

soft keep nothing wrong with it per se Oreocooke (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George Orwell § Influence on language and writing as per above. This is really just an elaborated dict def, and while the word is tossed around quite a lot I don't see the need to spin this out into a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Honestly surprised this is as small as it is. Definitely notable as it has sustained usage for decades. Certainly needs expansion. Metallurgist (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to be a notable term that can be expanded on beyond a simple dictionary definition per WP:NEXIST. I am of the belief that redirecting an otherwise notable page can often permanently prevent it from being expanded because very few editors assume redirected pages have article potential. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any specific details or information the article could be expanded with that would not be redundant to nor in scope for George Orwell? silviaASH (inquire within) 10:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources brought up in this same discussion can clearly be used to expand it into a full non redundant article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry, I missed those links somehow. I'll have a look later and give my opinion. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The use of this word and thus the importance of this article will only grow with time. 2601:600:8F82:8370:7DBC:F230:C0D1:CA89 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, first choice, redirect, second choice. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article describes ideas, situations, or policies that may be more prevalent in the future or are somewhat already in place in the world. Also it need expansion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.153.217.248 (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the phrase is quite common where I live (Hungary), and it is an idea (object) independent of Orwell's person. Also this is already more than a dictionary entry. --grin ✎ 14:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep shockingly obvious keep. This keep is so strong that if people were to compare this keep to Mr. Olympia, and they were to ask, "Which is stronger? This AfD for a 'Keep', or 'Mr. Olmpia', the answer would be obvious... this AfD as a 'Keep'" is stronger. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the word has significance in the political landscape and deleting an article about it can be seen as "Orwellian" itself. In fact, the deletion notice on this article has already become a meme and is used as an ironic example for something "Orwellian" which justifies special care on this matter. Besides, the article has potential for extension with past and modern examples that should not flood the page about George Orwell itself. PhysixMF (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as explained the concept is widely used far beyond the works of Orwell himself. Article should be increased and improved. Not to mention that erasing it would be definitely orwellian especially in an encyclopédie. I suspect the proposal to be a joke. Diderot1 (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jakarta EE. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jakarta Annotations

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

The article is supported by 3 primary sources, all of which are documentation pages published by Jakarta EE. I didn't find reliable coverage on Google Scholar or Google News, though I did find several passing mentions. The article may also fail WP:NOT, as in, Wikipedia is not software documentation. Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jakarta EE - I found a bit of discussion under its older names (JSR 250, "Common Annotations for the Java Platform"), but not sufficient coverage to justify a standalone article. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Suriname0 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jakarta EE. My WP:BEFORE search finds only references which are primary to the subject and not sufficient to establish notability. So, redirect as per viable WP:ATD. If secondary and independent references to the subject are found then please ping me. Fade258 (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jakarta EE Charlie (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jakarta EE since there are only the primary source from Jakarta, this does not need to stand alone, maybe a merge of this basic content as well. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nee Bandinaipoyya

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

Clearly non-notable film that fails WP:NFILM. It seems like it might have been self-released on Amazon Prime Video rather than through any reputable distribution company. Article was initially draftified but the creator moved it back to mainspace. Mz7 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Mz7 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of independent coverage. Svartner (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not meets to WP:NFILM and delete per nom.--Warm Regards, Abhimanyu7 talk 08:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After conducting a quick WP:BEFORE search, I am not able to find references containing significant coverage about the topic to meet general notability guidelines or demonstrate significant coverage about the topic. And also It doesn't appears to meet WP:NFILM. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage about the topic are found. Fade258 (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM and is not otherwise notable as written and from findable sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Busytown without prejudice against selective merging. I see a consensus for this target given that the lone suggestion for the other target has no explanation. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lowly Worm

AfDs for this article:

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

A character in the Busytown series. Previously kept in 2010, but the character has little sourcing, with all I could find largely being either mentions in a work analyzing Busytown and giving background summary, mentions in biographies or guidebooks, or mentions of the phrase "lowly worm". The two sentences of actual coverage can easily be put into the Busytown article, while the mention of the recall does not seem particularly relevant to Lowly Worm himself and moreso to a wider series-wide event. I do not see any reason this article needs to be kept separate when it can easily be covered alongside Busytown with greater benefit to the reader, in line with WP:NOPAGE. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Animal. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Busy World of Richard Scarry#Cast – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I love Lowly. But Huckle Cat redirects to Busytown and so that makes sense for this. Metallurgist (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it possible that any of the Lowly Worm books or items got specific reviews/coverage? We could use this as a general landing page for Lowly Worm focused items rather than just a character page. I do see some light coverage for the last Lowly Worm book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ReaderofthePack most of it was on the Busytown series as a whole more than any particular Lowly Worm media. If there's some individually notable Lowly Worm books I'd argue those are best kept to separate articles given a lack of overall discussion on Lowly Worm media. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete lowly worm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:A13B:7871:8679:CCDC:6234:BF39 (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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