Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Asia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Asia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Asia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Asia. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Asia/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Purge page cache

This list also includes sublists of deletion debates involving articles related to specific Asian countries.

Asia

Asian American public television

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

Lack of any sigcov and so poorly sourced it is barely able to acknowledge its subject. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Asia, and United States of America. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a topic with extensive research in media studies, sociology, etc. Just check google scholar, dozens of books and articles there; [1] [2] [3] [4] Katzrockso (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uralo-Siberian languages

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

Uralo-Yukaghir and Eskimo-Uralic are both notable, but Fortescue is essentially the only person proposing the combined hypothesis, and his work hasn't gained enough traction to have its own article. Stockhausenfan (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fortescue's article per nom. (t · c) buIdhe 06:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding Communist Party Member

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

From my removed prod: "Non-notable award. Most sources found online come from Chinese government propaganda outlets which are Wikipedia:UNRELIABLE." One source is from CNKI which is deeply influenced and parent organization is owned by the Chinese government. Online is mostly biased sources.

For March 8th Red Banner Pacesetter similar to my prod from there: "Non-notable award. Most sources found online come directly from the organization itself - WP:Primary sources or come from Chinese government propaganda outlets which are Wikipedia:UNRELIABLE."

If independent and reliable sources are found, then these can be kept and have those reworked into the article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Asia, and China. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 20:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into Chinese Communist Party Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep purely based off I do not believe this is an appropriate batch nom (the subjects are too different, first article is an award given more adhoc/generally, the second is an annual award ceremony), with no prejudice for re-nom unbundled. Jumpytoo Talk 23:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is still not a reason to argue for keep. You haven't addressed the concerns of the nomination. March 8th Red Banner Pacesetter is an actual award. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid keep reason on procedural grounds. As I said in my vote, there is no problem if the two articles were nominated separately. Jumpytoo Talk 00:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but both have the same issues. And it is still okay to nominate together for that reason alone. Same applies for Cfd, Tfd, Mfd if there are similar issues across the same arena. But nonetheless. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep March 8th Red Banner Pacesetter per WP:GNG. In addition to the sources already cited in the article, which include a scholarly source that discusses the awards extensively, many other sources can be found with online searches for "三八红旗手". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (in exile)

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

Does not exist, with no developments since 2021 and Wikipedia consensus to state IEA as sole government on related pages since then. The premise is Saleh's self-claim in 2021 on Twitter that he's president. The article does not mention that no country has recognized him and the effort's been entirely fruitless, as the pages recognition of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and Amrullah Saleh have noted for years. Saleh himself removed the claim to being president from his Twitter bio a long time ago and appears to have moved on; there have not been any developments since late 2021, when the Taliban cemented full control of all territory. The rest of the article is padded with content about embassies and the takeover in 2021, not establishing any recognition of Saleh. When there’s no 1) international recognition 2) Territory held or 3) RS describing a GiE, there’s unfortunately no basis for an article. TEMPO156 (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Afghanistan. TEMPO156 (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killi Faizo

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

Unreferenced since 2005. Not clear if this place passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

delete unref and I failed to find significant coverage (although I must admot I didnt ttry really hard). --Altenmann >talk 04:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tagged as unsourced 16 years, somehow this survived the last reference drive. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

New alerts are automatically placed here, this page is kept as a historic reference.

Articles for deletion

Valeriy Saharyan

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

BLP that is refbombed with links that I don’t believe demonstrate the notability of the subject. The production house he founded is possibly notable but this biography is so poor I think we’re in TNT territory. Mccapra (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and Armenia. Mccapra (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Renderforest

AfDs for this article:

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

Likely fails WP:GNG. I am not sure if currently available references show substantial independent coverage for this software. So asking for community input. Pridemanty (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Pridemanty (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seconding what the nom has said. I originally tagged for speedy deletion, but the sources seem to at least be making an effort to establish notability so AfD may be the better path. This is the 5th or 6th time this has been created, having been deleted once in AfD and all other times under various speedy deletion rationales. I don't see notability from the sources or from my own search. aesurias (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aesurias It was speedy deleted in 2016. Since then this software has received many coverage. Can you please see the sources. Boommeowsy (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedily deleted 6 days ago. There is a message on your talk page about it. aesurias (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't saw that otherwise I had contested that. Can you please see the sources I provided below and give your input basis on that. Do you think this software is notable? Boommeowsy (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep– This is a well known company in Armenia and visited by President. There is clear significant coverage in independent & reliable sources which meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG. It had decent media coverage like: ArmenPress Oldest Armenian Newspaper https://armenpress.am/en/article/1196977* BM.ge: “Armenian Prime Minister Reviews the Success of Renderforest – a Platform with 26 Million Users” <https://bm.ge/en/news/armenian-prime-minister-reviews-the-success-of-renderforest-a-platform-with-26-million-users> * Tech.news.am: “Number of Armenian Renderforest users reaches 20 million” <https://tech.news.am/eng/news/826/number-of-armenian-renderforest-users-reaches-20-million.html> Coverage spans multiple national and Armenian news outlets over years. I have updated article further to correct promotional tune. Boommeowsy (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second and third are promotional fluff pieces that don't qualify (in my opinion). The first is not great either – Armenpress is the main state-owned media network in Armenia and it's just a promotional piece for the government aesurias (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArmenPress is a well known newspaper site in Armenia. Boommeowsy (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's well known because it is the largest state-owned media network, and therefore coverage about state leaders is not really independent. aesurias (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: This should've been speedied. Isn't this the fifth time it's been recreated? MediaKyle (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did nominate for speedy deletion but the AfD poster removed it and did this. 🤷🏽‍♀️ aesurias (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sourcing feels PROMOish, many of the sources aren't indexed by Cite Highlighter, the two that are (3 and 7) are marginal for notability. Being visited by the president isn't terribly notable, usually more of a PR stunt. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Aneirinn (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan

INMerge Innovation Summit

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

Previously salted as InMerge Innovation Summit * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Azerbaijan. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 18:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event is the largest and well-established in the region. There are many Azerbaijani sources that Western media may not know or that may not be accepted in the English Wikipedia. However, the event has many international participants and spin-offs in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. An Azerbaijani language version can be found here and some of the local sources added to the English version: https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/InMerge_%C4%B0nnovasiya_Sammiti --AbeerT (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very telling that so many socks have attempted to disrupt this AfD. There's clearly some ulterior motive here, which only makes the case for deletion this article created in wilful contempt of proper processes stronger. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh

Morgan Girls High School

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only three sources cover this topic. The first and second ones are completely about the founder. And the third one is completely irrelevant. Raihanur (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Raihanur (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bottomley Home Girls' High School

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

Fails WP:GNG. The first three sources are basically the same website, and fourth one is a permanently dead link. Additionally, None of the four sources are opening. Raihanur (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Raihanur (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Begums

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

This article is based on very poor sources which mentions the topic as trivially. Rest of the article is an original research/possible hoax. Rht bd (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic. Maybe improved with the time Ahammed Saad (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I agree with the reason. But the topic is notable. I think it should be rewritten or smth. Raihanur (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tasfique Haque Nafew

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

Not yet notable per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Seems like a splendid person, involved in all sorts of admirable volunteer work, but the sources cited that mention him do so only in passing, and in a WP:BEFORE search I couldn't find any significant coverage of him in English or Bangla. Posed photo taken by article creator and unsourced claims about his early life suggest a conflict of interest. His bio by same editor has been speedy deleted twice at Bangla WP, yesterday and today. Wikishovel (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. Wikishovel (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject of this article has received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent national newspapers of Bangladesh (such as The Daily Star, Prothom Alo, Jugantor, Daily Ittefaq).

1. Coverage regarding COVID-19 Oxygen Service: https://www.thedailystar.net/country/news/covid-19-pandemic-volunteers-set-isolation-centre-poor-patients-1919577

2. Coverage regarding Flood Response leadership: https://www.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/district/5vp3ccg7hf

3. Coverage regarding Voluntary Paddy Harvesting: https://www.jugantor.com/tp-bangla-face/178343

These sources establish notability per WP:GNG. The article is well-referenced and I am open to improving it further rather than deletion. Istiak ahomed (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Istiak ahomed (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

The article is indeed well referenced, and the sources you cite are reliable. But as explained at Wikipedia's guidelines on significant coverage, the sources would need to address the topic directly and in detail to show notability. None of the three articles are about him: the first two quote him, and the third mentions him in passing. Can you find any reliable sources which are actually about Tasfique Haque? I tried, but couldn't find any. Wikishovel (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete- References used in the article are not indepth coverage of the article. Just passing mention or quotation from the subject. Created as spam. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Rht bd (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Really? It is clearly a spam article and should have been tagged for speedy deletion rather than taken to AfD. Hteiktinhein (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 11:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO or WP:GNG. There are only some passing mentions of the subject; there is nothing else (No WP:SIGCOV). -- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaima Rahman

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

According to WP:BIO, for a person to have a separate article, there must be WP:SIGCOV in independent, third-party reliable sources. Most of the sources used in the article are about the National Prayer Breakfast. Besides that, I haven’t seen any detailed coverage of personal or professional achievements, and the sources are mainly family-centric, such as news like “whose daughter/granddaughter.” In this case, such one-dimensional, event-based coverage is not enough to create a separate biography.

According to WP:1E, if a person is discussed in the media because of a single event, their information should be kept in the article about that event, not in a separate article. From what I’ve seen, the sources in the article are centered around a specific visit in 2025, and beyond that, there is very little independent discussion about Zaima. So this falls under WP:1E.

According to WP:BIOFAMILY, “being a relative of a notable person alone does not make someone notable.” Such information is usually kept in the family article or in the article of the notable person.

Therefore, I think this page should be deleted and Zaima’s information could be added to the Majumder–Zia family article. Emdad Tafsir ◀ Talk ▶ 15:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Emdad Tafsir ◀ Talk ▶ 15:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article subject (she) was a subject of national controversy, per /Career section, as a result of the controversy a former minister had to resign, so obviously a notable topic. Also she is one of a regularly discussed topics in Bangladesh, such as recent coverage 1 and 2. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 16:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tanbiruzzaman, I have read the career section. The claim that she is notable because “a former minister had to resign” is not supported by the citations. Murad Hasan’s resignation resulted from multiple controversies, including derogatory remarks about Islamic scholars and an actress, alongside the comment involving Zaima Rahman. Reliable coverage makes clear that the resignation was not caused by the subject (Zaima) personally, and she was not the main focus of the controversy.
Moreover, the cited sources in the article are about the minister’s conduct and resignation, not about Zaima Rahman herself. They do not provide the significant, independent, in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON.
Per WP:BLP1E, a person mentioned incidentally in a short-lived, event-based news cycle does not gain notability. Being referenced in someone else’s scandal without substantial biographical coverage does not justify a standalone biography. Emdad Tafsir ◀ Talk ▶ 16:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You got misleading. read the section and cited sources again. However, this is not the only event I mentioned, you also mentioned about another event in main nomination, that is National Prayer Breakfast, and she is obviously one of a regularly discussed topics in Bangladesh, per my comment above, and I have searched on google (you can also try a query) there are lot more can be added. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 16:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 16:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete shows no notability. Mehedi Abedin 03:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not place for personal promotion. Hteiktinhein (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, Wikipedia is not for personal promotion, so we should remove promotional content from this article to make it suitable for Wikipedia standards. Zaima Rahman is an important figure in Bangladeshi politics because she is mentioned various times in the Bangladesh political landscape. Additionally, she is the daughter of Tarique Rahman and the granddaughter of Ziaur Rahman and Khaleda Zia. I believe we need to consider these points to improve the article's standard rather than delete it. Iftekharrr (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are some sources that provide WP:significant coverage. I'm not familiar with the sources and I'd like other editors to weigh in on their quality. If they are independent and reliable, then this article could pass the letter of the guideline of WP:BIO while being sustained over time. However, the coverage is limited to speculation about future endeavors, and is centered around two appearances. I'm not sure that the subject feels notable.

United News of Bangladesh (UNB) 2025-02-03 and 2025-11-23 have multiple biographical details, that address the subject directly and in detail including education, residence. Speculation about her future role in the BNP. Mostly keyed off of two appearances.
Ittefaq 2025-02 article on subject's potential role in the future of the BNP (political party)
Kaler Kantho editorial? 2025-11 with biographical information

—🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of sources about Zaima Rahman that are reliable, neutral, and not promotional. Iftekharrr (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @PacificDepths: I would say that UNB is reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS (France24, BBC, AP), The Daily Ittefaq is mentioned in the BBC media guide for Bangladesh, it is sometimes quoted in Google Books and Google Scholar, however, I cannot find its About page. Kaler Kantho "About" page states (Google translate), Kalerkantho is a national leading daily from Bangladesh, established on January 10, 2010. We serve complete truth to our readers, not the half., I would say it is unreliable. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article must be kept as she is part of the most important political dynasties in a country and has a potential to be a future leader there. There is high interest in this person and therefore this page must NOT be deleted. Nabikh (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep : per above Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 19:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many reliable sources mention her, but their depth of coverage of her (as opposed to her family - notability is not inherited) is very shallow. Nor does Tanbiruzzaman's claim that she's obviously notable stand up to close scrutiny, as Emdad Tafsir has already explained. She may be a "regularly discussed topic in Bangladesh" and their may be "tons of sources" but they're similar in nature to, "What is known about that brunette who has been seen standing next to [insert name of famous actor]. Are they related? Is she an actress? Does she want to be an actress?" Their breathless gossip about social media is not the stuff that notability is made of. If she enters politics, the question can be reevaluated once she gets elected to something. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chittagong University Central Students' Union

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

Non-notable student organization. Coverage in sources is trivial or relates to events that relate to the organization but which don't extend into secondary coverage nor do they conduct significant independent analysis of the organization itself. Previous history of disputed draftification, see also Special:History/Draft:Chittagong University Central Students' Union. Possible merge candidate to University of Chittagong but I don't think things such as listing the org's constitution are particularly encyclopedic and a failure of WP:NOT, it would need to be selective. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Bangladesh. jolielover♥talk 15:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appears to be sufficient sourcing in the article already to pass WP:ORGCRIT. The Daily Star (Bangladesh) pieces are solid as are the ones in The Daily Observer and The Business Standard. The CUCSU is literally named in the titles of these secondary sources as the primary subject (and the content in the articles). I disagree that the coverage is not about the organization in these sources. Not seeing a policy based reason to delete this.4meter4 (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment from nom: I'll work on a source assessment below if anyone would like to chime in. I'm copying all the citation templates as present in the article, I'll note the ?utm_source=chatgpt.com was simply copied over.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Hossain, Shahadat (13 January 2011). "Dysfunctional CUCSU breeds chaos". The Daily Star. Retrieved 15 September 2025.		Very WP:PRIMARY coverage, it does discuss the then inactive previous executive or membership. It's hard to see how this contributes to significant analysis. There are paragraphs that simply state facts that aren't even whole sentences.	✘ No
Ahmed, SM Mahfuj (15 September 2025). "CU gears up for student union polls after 35yrs". The Daily Star. Retrieved 15 September 2025.		This is the definition of PRIMARY coverage, interviews with people in the ongoing event, details about the specifics regarding dates and upcoming times. This isn't critical analysis of the subject.	✘ No
"35 years without Cucsu: CU still silent as 3 univs announce student union polls". The Business Standard. 31 July 2025. Retrieved 15 September 2025.		This is the best yet. It does cover a timeline of the organization, though I'll note that one that was defunct for 35 years feels like it is hard to say it is the same thing.	? Unknown
"Chittagong University approves new Cucsu constitution, sets 30yr age limit". The Business Standard. 1 August 2025. Retrieved 15 September 2025.		This is again PRIMARY coverage.	✘ No
"We want CUCSU election". The Daily Observer. Retrieved 15 September 2025.		Letter to the editor. No journalistic coverage of the subject.	✘ No
"Cucsu Election on Oct 12, ending 35-year hiatus". Dhaka Tribune. Retrieved 15 September 2025.		Routine coverage, announcement of dates.	✘ No
bdnews24.com. "CUCSU election scheduled for Oct 12 after 35 years". CUCSU election on 12 Oct. Retrieved 15 September 2025.`{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)		Not significant, little more than announcement of dates.	✘ No
"CUCSU constitution revised: joint secy posts abolished, new secretarial positions introduced \| News". BSS. Retrieved 15 September 2025.		Announcement of new roles by members of the org, very primary and WP:ROUTINE. We would otherwise look at this as WP:CHURNALISM in any other sense.	✘ No
"CUCSU committee continues for 27 years!". prothomalo.com. Prothom Alo. 12 October 2017. Retrieved 26 January 2019.	Comprised of some interviews	Some primary coverage with interviews and quotes, some independent analysis of the old organization.	? Unknown
"কেন্দ্র-হল মিলিয়ে ১০৬৩ মনোনয়নপত্র বিতরণ". 16 September 2025. Retrieved 16 September 2025.		Routine. Even being generous with the of some of the sources above, I don't even think there's a case for this one.	✘ No
"Chittagong University Central Students' Union (CUCSU) and Hall Union Election – 2025". cucsu.cu.ac.bd. Retrieved 15 September 2025.	Org. website		✘ No
"Chittagong University Central Students' Union (CUCSU) and Hall Union Election – 2025". cucsu.cu.ac.bd. Retrieved 15 September 2025.	Org. website		✘ No
"তফসিল – Chittagong University Central Students' Union (CUCSU) and Hall Union Election – 2025". cucsu.cu.ac.bd. Retrieved 15 September 2025.	Org. website		✘ No
"গঠনতন্ত্র – Chittagong University Central Students' Union (CUCSU) and Hall Union Election – 2025". cucsu.cu.ac.bd. Retrieved 15 September 2025.	Org. website		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

If anyone would like to chime in they are more than welcome. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Work in progress, give me a chance to finish up. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, having prioritised the ones mentioned above by 4meter4, I don't think the sources present in this article fully satisfy WP:SIRS that Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) asks of us. Routine, trivial coverage, rehashing of announcements made by the org itself. Nothing WP:LASTING, we're so focused on an election of an organization that hasn't existed for 35 years, with no coverage of it other than who was a member at the time of the previous dissolution. Likely WP:TOOSOON for any real, lasting notability. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per Bobby Cohn source analysis. Svartner (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about the student union of the largest university in Bangladesh, so it is reasonable to expect this to be notable. The relevant guideline is WP:CLUB, not WP:NCORP. But even for the latter guideline, it is accepted that controversy related to the company is good enough for notability. Here we have coverage in national press such as The Business Standard of the future election of the union's leadership[5]. The elections themselves were covered by Prothom Alo[6]. Prior to that, in 2011, another national newspaper, The Daily Star reported that the lack of an elected CUCSU made student organizations "dysfunctional"[7]. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus, and editors are still split between keeping and deleting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've removed some of the worst sources Bobby Cohn analyzed. Some of the remainder (such as The Daily Star, The Business Standard and Prothom Alo) do count toward WP:GNG, in my opinion. I added another solid overview article from bdnews24.com, and used half a dozen books and journal articles to add a few paragraphs about the 1981 CUCSU election. Academics frequently refer to that election as emblematic of where the country seemed to be headed at the time. The murder of student leader Farukuzzaman on 22 December 1990 by ICS (who are now back in power) deserves a mention too, even if online English-language coverage of it is thin. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Worldbruce. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 19:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei

Cambodia

ACLEDA Bank

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

Promotional page created by SPA with a lot of uncited content and clear COI without disclosure Czarking0 (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Cambodia. Czarking0 (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Based on the sources, it appears notable, although at least one source is blank. With a few careful edits, I think this can be fixed. Is the issue promotion, sources, or conflict of interest? Bearian (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NORG. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A book about it, another book, A paper, another paper. This is the largest bank in Cambodia after all. I removed unreferenced "History" section. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

China

Kam Chuk Kok

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

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

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

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

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

29-Article Ordinance for the More Effective Governing of Tibet

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

There does not seem to be adequate notability backed up by WP:RS to warrant a stand-alone article. Amigao (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, Politics, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13-Article Ordinance for the More Effective Governing of Tibet

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

There does not seem to be adequate notability backed up by WP:RS to warrant a stand-alone article. Tibet under Qing rule can cover this sufficiently. Amigao (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, Politics, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen Articles for the Settlement of Qinghai Affairs

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

There does not seem to be adequate notability backed up by WP:RS to warrant a stand-alone article. Amigao (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Politics, Religion, Economics, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reincarnated soul boy

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

This article is purely WP:OR and lacks any WP:RS establishing notability. Amigao (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A click through Google Scholar gives us our pick of sources [9]. I'm satisfied that the term is real. The question is whether it merits an article on its own, per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great point regarding WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This term would probably be more appropriate for Wiktionary. - Amigao (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Discourse of Lama

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

No evidence of notability backed up by WP:RS that would warrant a stand-alone article. Amigao (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Stele Inscriptions of the Pacification of Tibet

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

This is of questionable notability and it does not appear backed up with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Military, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding Communist Party Member

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

From my removed prod: "Non-notable award. Most sources found online come from Chinese government propaganda outlets which are Wikipedia:UNRELIABLE." One source is from CNKI which is deeply influenced and parent organization is owned by the Chinese government. Online is mostly biased sources.

For March 8th Red Banner Pacesetter similar to my prod from there: "Non-notable award. Most sources found online come directly from the organization itself - WP:Primary sources or come from Chinese government propaganda outlets which are Wikipedia:UNRELIABLE."

If independent and reliable sources are found, then these can be kept and have those reworked into the article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Asia, and China. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 20:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into Chinese Communist Party Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep purely based off I do not believe this is an appropriate batch nom (the subjects are too different, first article is an award given more adhoc/generally, the second is an annual award ceremony), with no prejudice for re-nom unbundled. Jumpytoo Talk 23:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is still not a reason to argue for keep. You haven't addressed the concerns of the nomination. March 8th Red Banner Pacesetter is an actual award. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid keep reason on procedural grounds. As I said in my vote, there is no problem if the two articles were nominated separately. Jumpytoo Talk 00:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but both have the same issues. And it is still okay to nominate together for that reason alone. Same applies for Cfd, Tfd, Mfd if there are similar issues across the same arena. But nonetheless. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep March 8th Red Banner Pacesetter per WP:GNG. In addition to the sources already cited in the article, which include a scholarly source that discusses the awards extensively, many other sources can be found with online searches for "三八红旗手". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damxung railway station

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

Unreferenced article. Individual railway stations are rarely notable. Per WP:NOPAGE this would probably be better covered at Qinghai–Tibet railway. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest checking for the station in Baidu and whatever the Chinese counterpart for Bradshaw's Guide is. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and China. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from the corresponding article in Chinese. There's a photo of the station that suggests it is reasonably large, but we don't have passenger statistics for the station. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are a few more sources:

"坐着"高"铁看中国！青藏铁路：最美的高原铁路线". China Central Television. Retrieved 2025-11-26.
"海拔最高的铁路改造一座城！青藏铁路通车17周年，拉萨当雄怎样了？". Sina Finance. Retrieved 2025-11-26 – via baidu.com.

Jumpytoo Talk 03:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Qinghai–Tibet railway#Existing stations: Article is very poorly sourced: Two references about its name, another unverifiable but most likely a routine announcement about its opening and another one from an hotel booking site. The sources listed in the AfD aren’t independent; they’re the same, and little more than a mention. No SIGCOV in RS. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Go Championship

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

Completely unreferenced. Not clear this passes WP:NEVENT/WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment w:zh:全国围棋个人赛 isn't much better in terms of sourcing, but it does have some examples of news coverage. "Chinese Go Championship" doesn't seem to be the usual English name for the 1957-to-present contest being described here (although it is used for a different contest); the literal translation National Go Individual (Competition) appears more common. Adam Sampson (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It certainly would have impacted my BEFORE search. I'll try hunting again under the correct name.4meter4 (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Results of the 2025 competition. In 2024, there was a controversy related to AI cheating. Announcement for the 2007 tournament. This archive link from the official website allows verify winners from 2005 to 2007. In 2025, the winner got ¥80,000, which is a bit more than $10,000. So, the claim of the $300 prize fund in the article is incorrect. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelob2678: Under what policy are you basing your keep vote? The first source is from Tencent QQ which is not a reliable publication. The second source from Sina Corporation seems fine. The third source is a press release and is not independent. And the last source is the organization's website which is also not independent. How does this pass WP:ORGCRIT (because this is an organization as well as a competition) or WP:EVENTCRIT? This is not demonstrating coverage that passes WP:SIGCOV requirements for organizations, events, or even the general notability guidelines. We need multiple independent sources with in-depth coverage.4meter4 (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tencent QQ is realiable, we have WP:RSCONTEXT. The third source is not press release. This competition should pass WP:GNG. In general, national level competition in a country with more than one billion people are notable.

For instance, the third source says The history of the Individual Championship can be traced back to 1957, spanning 50 years to date. Although it was interrupted for various reasons, and its current visibility is not as high as the Tianyuan or Mingren competitions, it is nonetheless China's longest-running Go tournament. The champions from the 50 years of the Individual Championship are displayed in the lobby of the host hotel in Dezhou. From Gu Tixing to Wang Xi, the Individual Championship has witnessed virtually the entire history of Go in the New China. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a query on Tencent QQ at the reliable sources noticeboard. Based on our description of the source at the Tencent QQ wikipedia article it appears that the website is a blog hosting platform that would be subject to WP:BLOG/WP:SELFPUBLISHED. It would therefor be unreliable. We'll see what editors have to say there. Perhaps I'm missing some sort of editorial oversight? I'll take your word on the other source. Usually I think of "announcement" as a press release, but in fact it wasn't an announcement but coverage of the opening day of the competition with some historical coverage of the event as a whole. That seems fine as well. That would be two sources that are usable. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That particular piece is a republication from foxwq, which, as I understand, is a Chinese site dedicated to Go[10]. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major incidents do get reporting in English Chinese media. [11][12] Without a proper WP:BEFORE search in Chinese-language sources, it's hard to say that WP:NEXIST isn't met. Not a policy-based reason, but this would be like the Chinese Wikipedia deleting the US Chess Championship because it doesn't get coverage in Chinese-language sources. Go/Weiqi is very popular there. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 08:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

China National Highway 101

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

Based entirely on self published travel websites and primary government sources. I could find zero independent sources. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 18:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GEOROAD as a major national highway. I see several sources on zh Wikipedia and Baidu Baike. This is like trying to AfD U.S. Route 101. Jumpytoo Talk 02:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment on the sources: the vast majority of sources on Baidu Baike focus on the construction of the new expressway section of the highway, not the original highway itself, so WP:RSCONTEXT might be an issue since those sources only mention the current highway in passing. Many sources in the Chinese Wikipedia seem to be from old road records (literally "road chronicles") that don't seem to be readily available online but I'll see if I can find a copy. For some reason, there is extensive coverage of the new section of the highway but little on the existing highway itself. Yaoshiiscool (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources describing upgrading portions of the existing highway to expressway standards are usable to show notability on the whole highway itself. If they were not it would make for very awkward articles where one could only talk about certain small sections of the highway. Jumpytoo Talk 19:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jumpytoo: meeting GEOROAD only means that its typically notable... It doesn't actually confer notability, only independent sigcov can do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging @Yaoshiiscool:, who is working on a draft article about a section of this highway. Jumpytoo Talk 02:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jumpytoo. Chinese road infrastructure articles on the English Wikipedia tend not to be well-maintained, but that shouldn't warrant deletion. I'll work on improving this article and other related ones in December when I have more time. Yaoshiiscool (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems odd that we have keep votes from editors who admit the sources don't cover the current road which is the subject of this article. Perhaps draftify would be a better outcome here given Yaoshiiscool's promise to work on this in the coming year?4meter4 (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I apologize for the confusion above (I meant to say WP:SIGCOV and not WP:RSCONTEXT), as I'm a bit new to this process. I've added a few sources to improve the article and I'd like a second opinion on whether these sources satisfy the requirements for WP:RS, specifically for WP:SIGCOV and WP:INDY. After a bit of research, it seems to me that there are some WP:RS covering the road but not necessarily as its main topic, which was my area of confusion. And to clarify what I said above, I was saying that the sources in the Chinese Wikipedia and Baidu Baike did not appear to have coverage of the article, but it now appears that some of these sources have sufficient coverage of this highway for certain points.

It appears to me that WP:GEOROAD gives national highways some leniency regarding notability and that the article, in its current state, satisfies notability requirements, so I'm not sure if there is anything else that needs to be addressed for this nomination. Please let me know if you think there is. Yaoshiiscool (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GEOROAD says "typically notable" but it gives no leniency regarding notability whatsoever. They are typically notable because independent sigcov typically exists... If it doesn't then they aren't notable under the notability standard and would have to be kept under WP:IAR alone. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I think that we can presume that sigcov of this topic exists... It seems inexplicable that academic accounts of China's road network development wouldn't lavish significant coverage on this highway unless perhaps I misunderstand how the Chinese highway numbering system works and this isn't in fact a very OG road... Such a presumption is of course not unassailable, but it would require at least a good faith scrubbing of a number of academic works beyond simple free internet access. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I almost closed this as keep, but it does seem heavy on presumption rather than fact. Relisting in hopes a firmer degree of consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Typically we would expect 1,000km long roads to be notable, and a quick look at the Chinese wiki shows that the article there is decent, with 16 sources and a long history. This can clearly be improved, albeit probably not using English sources. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minzu railway station (Inner Mongolia)

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

The only sources in the Chinese language were primary and were not covering this station, but a different one with the same name in Hohhot. The article creator was banned for socking almost 15 years ago. Nighfidelity (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and China. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 17:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest checking for the station in Baidu and whatever the Chinese counterpart for Bradshaw's Guide is. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced 15 years, history of socks, difficult to verify. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes unsourced 15 years back. But not very difficult to source... I think I am lucky with a bit of patience and perseverance... I feel some of these AfDs could be saved. But I guess it is part of the process to keep the Wiki going with verifiable, notable articles only... Pages on Railway stations, which do not have easy access on internet, need a wiki page, so that those one in a million who search should get the news... reliable ones. My humble cent on this... Happy editing. Davidindia (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- to the Beijing–Baotou railway#Stations and mileage As an ATD. Checked out the Chinese wiki version, not any more helpful in suggesting standalone notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Nighfidelity: What were the sources that you found? Looking at where the station is, it is located near Hohhot so they may have been referring to this station in question. Jumpytoo Talk 02:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese version of the article states that it's in Tangshan–Baotou railway, while this version states that it's in Beijing–Baotou railway. Nighfidelity (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be the same station? Tangshan is close to Beijing, so it's conceivable those railways overlap. The route maps in the railway articles' infoboxes list a few of the same stations around Minzu. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at various maps [13] [14], it seems the two railways are next to each other in this area. I guess sources may be using them interchangeability because of that. I am able to confirm there are no other stations with the same name in Mainland China (there is one other station with same name in Taiwan), so whatever sourcing you found was likely for this station in question. Jumpytoo Talk 20:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Came across this thru NoRef Nov25 drive. Just trying to save the page... I request the nominator or other editors to check once. I removed the unreferenced tag. thanks and happy editing! Davidindia (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added another ref, I think the article can be kept! Davidindia (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I have doubts about the notability bot the site of there are enough sources regardless of language then I suppose it can be kept. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
of the site Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough sources to meet WP:BASIC INMO. The sourcing is not great, but it's workable.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunseeker Robotics

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

No indication of notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The only reliable, secondary coverage I could find of them is the cited Register review of one of their products. The rest of the coverage of them online is press releases. Previously tagged for proposed deletion; this was contested without comment by article creator. Wikishovel (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Wikishovel (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Artificial intelligence. jolielover♥talk 13:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikishovel, all the content is sourced from non-press-release websites, and they are all well-known sites (CNET, The Register, The Gadgeteer). None of the content involves participation from the brands, and it is all neutral information. Please review it again. Thank you. Leefranklawyer (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is WP:PROMO/WP:BROCHURE, unsuitable for Wikipedia. Jumpytoo Talk 08:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
update Leefranklawyer (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review it again. Thank you. Leefranklawyer (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Oswald, Ed (2024-09-10). "Sunseeker Orion X7 review: A great robot lawn mower with a subpar app". PC World. Archived from the original on 2025-11-24. Retrieved 2025-11-24.
  The review notes: "The Orion X7 is new, so there were bound to be some problems; every robot mower I’ve tested to date has had one quirk or another. It’s not impossible to set up, you just need to have some patience. And with any luck, it’s a process you might need to do just once. Problems of this nature are magnified at a mower at this price, because buying a higher-end robot mower brings higher expectations when it comes to babysitting the tool—and this toddler requires quality hands-on time at the outset. Every other element of the Sunseeker Orion X7—from its innovative floating cutting plates to its impressive AI and vision capabilities, which make it great for people who want to mow at night—is the best I’ve seen."
2. Hart, Spencer (2025-05-25). "I've been reviewing a GPS robot mower for a month – now I'll never mow my lawn manually again. After a month with the Sunseeker X5, my lawn looks like a golf course – and I haven't lifted a finger". Stuff.tv. Archived from the original on 2025-06-19. Retrieved 2025-11-24.
  The review notes: "For the past month, I’ve handed the job over to a robot – the Sunseeker Elite X5, to be precise – and it’s been quietly transforming my garden into something that looks professionally maintained. ... I’ve tested robot mowers before, including a Flymo that looked like a giant plastic pumpkin. The Sunseeker X5 is the opposite. It’s all clean lines, low profile, finished in black and grey – smart without being shouty. ... Of course, it’s not perfect. The biggest thing is that it doesn’t quite get to the very edges of the lawn, so you’ll still need a quick once-over with a strimmer every week or so. One morning, I got a notification saying the mower was stuck – it had dipped a wheel into a flowerbed and couldn’t find its way out. The issue wasn’t so much that it got stuck (we all have off days), but that it kept trying to free itself, spinning its wheels and gouging out a decent chunk of lawn in the process."
3. Speed, Richard (2025-11-01). "Robotic lawnmower uses AI to dodge cats, toys: The Sunseeker Elite X5 can mow on its own, but it doesn't come cheap". The Register. Archived from the original on 2025-11-24. Retrieved 2025-11-24.
  The review notes: "The tentacles of AI seem to be reaching everywhere, even to the humble lawnmower. We tested the Sunseeker Elite X5, a robotic mower that uses machine learning to steer around your lawn, to see what happens when artificial intelligence meets whirling blades of doom. ... In use, the X5 is quiet, effective, and efficient. While we couldn't help but hum the theme to Robocop while it did its thing, the resulting finish and stripes were impressive, although the need to set the cutting height manually is an annoyance, as is the requirement for two power sockets. The device is well-adapted for the UK climate and will return to its charger if it detects rain."
4. Prospero, Mike (2025-09-05). "The Sunseeker X3 Plus robot lawnmower has been trimming my yard all summer - 3 things I like and 1 I don't". Tom's Guide. Archived from the original on 2025-11-24. Retrieved 2025-11-24.
  The review notes: "The Sunseeker X3 Plus is a nice little robot lawnmower for those who have yards that aren’t too big or too steep. It’s easy to set up — I would never recommend buying a robot lawnmower that requires a boundary wire — and it did a good job at keeping my grass trimmed throughout the summer. Still, it’s not foolproof, as it got caught on what I thought were pretty low-profile obstacles. And, while I haven’t reviewed them, the Sunseeker X3 costs the same, or more than, other robot lawnmowers that are more capable on paper."
5. Carrick, Tony; Morgan, Kate (2025-06-02). "The 5 Best Robot Lawn Mowers Cut Grass Perfectly So You Don't Have To". Popular Mechanics. Archived from the original on 2025-11-24. Retrieved 2025-11-24.
  The review notes: "The Sunseeker L22 relies on ultrasonic technology and bumper sensors to weave around trees and avoid landscaping beds or other obstacles that might interrupt a rectangular mowing path. It even allows you to fine-tune how close it gets to obstacles as it works its way around them, so you can give delicate landscaping features a wide berth. If it does bump into something, it also has a safety mechanism that will halt the mower in its tracks."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Sunseeker brand 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) 05:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I reframed the article to be about the brand, rather than the company, since the sources are about the brand. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This promotional page fails WP:SIGCOV. Aneirinn (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I maintain my delete vote above due to the WP:ADMASQ and likely WP:UPE by creator. Jumpytoo Talk 04:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia

Proposed deletion

Hong Kong related deletions

Kam Chuk Kok

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

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

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

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

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

Jump Up – 9492

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

Fails WP:NALBUM/WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joey Yung#Discography – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interim Housing

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

Unsourced and doesn't present a global perspective on interim housing. It's a very odd article. There might be an article here somewhere but not under this title. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (no redirect) to Public housing in Hong Kong. There's academic coverage with published works like 'State-Engineered Temporary Urbanism and Multi-Dimensional Adaptability of the Transitional Housing Scheme in Hong Kong' as well as passing mentions and statistical counts in other works that could probably evidence a subsection in that article, but there's no need for a standalone article. Athanelar (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

India

Please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India

Indonesia

Indonesia Proposed deletions

Flag of King Sisingamangaraja (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)

Japan

Midnight Horror School

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Anime and manga, and Japan. Mika1h (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This anime aired in the era where internet was in low state. From what I know, the Japanese Wikipedia article has non-website references, mostly offline newspapers. However, I'm not good with pre-internet sources from any country, so I can't help with this. By the way, can anyone please give me an example of IRS SIGCOV for TV series? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no plot section or reception section, the latter of which hints at not passing GNG, although GNG may be met by the offline sources mentioned by Clara. The article definitely is not in good shape, and if it's kept it needs to be rewritten. Gommeh 📖 🎮 12:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honda H100S Super

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Cited to the manufacturer and another source which cited our Wikipedia page as its source making citogenesis a problem.4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Time for this one to ride into the sunset. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 20:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- to List of Honda motorcycles as a possible ATD, additional searches show lack of SIGCOV, at least from online searches.Lorraine Crane (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 04:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Honda motorcycles – Per above. Svartner (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nakamura Gakuen University

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

This page has almost nothing in it, nor does it have any citations or sources I think this page does not meet WP:NOTABILITY Filmssssssssssss (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree the article is fairly underdeveloped. But the corresponding article in Japanese Wikipedia has much more stuff and the notability here seems clear (colleges and universities are generally considered notable). -- Taku (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Higashi-Kakogawa

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

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

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

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

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

Raiden (series)

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

Fails WP:GNG, no notability demonstrated independent of the series' games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This nomination isn't really sufficient for a series article. Many of entries have their own articles. Are you suggesting that they're all non-notable? Or that the games are, but the series somehow isn't? Where are you going with this? Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They nominated the company article (MOSS) to be deleted which ended up redirected here. Now they're nominating this article for deletion as well. To me it just says: "I'm not familiar with shmups; therefore, they aren't notable enough." I agree the series article could use some work but I won't bother if it will end up nominated over and over again until it's deleted. Jotamide (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping this isn't an attempt at "indirect deletion" like that. But either way, this was a poor nom. The nominator is experienced and should know better. I'm waiting to see if they plan on expanding their rationale before I give an official "speedy keep - invalid nom" rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Sergecross73's comment. Deleting the series article would be counterproductive when multiple games in this franchise are notable. Nominator needs to provide better rationale for deletion. MidnightMayhem (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per the sources already present, and related wiki articles. Svartner (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - invalid, WP:ATA deletion rationale (WP:JNN). There's a ton of reliable source coverage present in the individual games (Raiden 1 has over 100 sources in it alone) so it's insufficient to simply vaguely allude to a lack of notability in the series itself. Could someone, conceptually, argue that a series article isn't necessary? I'm not sure I agree with the notion, but hypotherically, a plausible argument could be crafted. But this isn't it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What I mean in the rationale was that it has no independent notability per MOS:VGSERIES. As I did not nominate any of the games, I obviously didn't mean to say that the games weren't notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This just seems to be a series article like Far Cry (series) or Super Smash Bros. (series). I don't see an issue with this being kept. It has the bracketed '(series)' because Raiden exists already as a disambiguation page. 11WB (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raiden (video game)#Legacy. Retro Gamer issue 248 has a 6-page article on the series (pages 46-51). That's the only significant coverage I found, it's not enough on its own. Current keep arguments are just WP:INHERITED (notability is not inherited, notable individual games don't make the series notable) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (other game series have articles, so this should also have an article). --Mika1h (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient significant coverage which can be used to improve the article. Go D. Usopp (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To specify here: significant coverage of the series, or of the games themselves? Per WP:NOTINHERITED, notability of the games does not immediately imply notability of the series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "keep" arguments are not WP:NOTINHERITED violations. My point is not that "notable games = notable series", my point was that the original nomination before it was stealth revised is an exceedingly weak nomination when referring a complex situation like this. Its not enough to just shrug and say "non-notable" when there's a long-running series of video games getting lots of coverage. No indication of a BEFORE search. No indication that they reviewed the sourcing at the individual articles for series-related coverage. No exploration on if any of the compilation game releases in the series elicited any sort of commentary on the series, as it naturally would. No exploration on if any of the coverage is locked away in hard copy media since much of it originates in the 1990s. It was a sloppy, thoughtless nom by an experienced editor to know better, and I'm surprised to see endorsement of that... Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am flummoxed by your "stealth revised" comment. You literally asked me to revise my nomination so I did. It's also right in the page history where I wrote "add to rationale". That does not seem like someone trying to keep it secret.

I also don't know how you can say definitively that I conducted no WP:BEFORE given my deletion track record overall. I did a search to the best of my ability and the Retro Gamer source was exceedingly obscure given the popularity of the name "Raiden" as well as its use for the series' individual games. Just because I missed that doesn't mean I did no search at all, and saying it was "thoughtless" is an ad hominem, with totally uncalled for hostility. WP:BURDEN is on the article creator to demonstrate sources, not the deletion nominator to dive into obscure archives and assemble an airtight case, only to do a reasonable search and come up with nothing. Deletion noms are ultimately to improve the encyclopedia, this kind of lashing out prevents that from happening by creating a major chilling effect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it was literally a stealth edit. You made the edit. People responded. You revised it, leaving no indication that you changed it from what people responded to. Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it "stealth" is not WP:AGF, that is insinuating I wanted to sneak it under the radar when I just wasn't sure how to make the change without making it confusing. Neither is saying it was "a poor nom" and "No indication of a BEFORE search" when only a single, obscure gaming magazine source was found, instead of sources that are obvious and in plain sight that directly contradict everything I said. I'd just appreciate less hostility and more focusing on the facts. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you note that you changed your nomination after multiple editors responded or not? It certainly looks like you didn't, which is a failure of WP:REDACT. That's the point of what I'm getting at here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and admit that it was an error on my part. I nevertheless state that this was a pure accident and could've been handled more politely.

I will also note that this is an argument on the facts only, saying that you are "surprised to see endorsement of" a "sloppy nom" appears to be pointing to the depth or amount of arguments of the nomination itself rather than the facts to justify opposing it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the sources clearly satisfy GNG. In response to people claiming WP:NOTINHERITED, I agree. However, I think that if there are articles about entries in a specific series then the series itself would definitely be notable if the articles were (which they are in this case), so my question is if there's an essay that argues this? I would, however, like to see a reception section for the series as a whole, although that may or may not be feasible. Gommeh 📖 🎮 21:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GAE (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No evidence of any notability for this company. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My World, My Way (video game). Most notable product. Go D. Usopp (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fukinoto Hall

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

A small concert hall does not, by itself, meet the GNG or the notability requirements of WP:NBUILD. Htanaungg (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article talks about the number of seats, good acoustics and what style of music this hall is good for, but this is not enough to talk about the notability according to the criteria WP:NBUILD Nagirakitan (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Microcabin

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH with sources amounting to minor announcements. Japanese article not any better. There are some sources found on the talk page but all from a single publication and don't seem particularly significant. This "cabin" may need to be boarded up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xak or AQ Interactive. The latter might be better for being a plausible subtopic redirect. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should also note that the article may have to be moved to Microcabin (company) if redirected, because they seem to be an actual form of cabin and should probably redirect to Tiny-house movement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AQ Interactive. Plausible search term, as a subsidiary company of the target. Sergecross73 msg me 03:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xak would be more prudent ATD for now. checking into AQ Interactive#Subsidiaries shows that Micro cabin is a former subsidiary of it and has become a consolidated subsidiary of Fields Corporation, which we have yet an article of, in the english wiki at least.Lorraine Crane (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Racjin

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Almost entirely unsourced since 2007 and significant coverage is zilch. Couldn't find anything in gaming magazines beyond a mention of the studio name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Snowboard Kids, most notable product. Deletion is also preferable as long as its former name still redirects towards the suggested target. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More support for redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed as an ATD, sure. Can't even find much in Japanese, though my skills in that language are rather limited. LightlySeared (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with the proposed redirection target as the developer has developed many games and is still actively developing; redirecting to an arbitrary could cause confusion. Jumpytoo Talk 04:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concurring, "most notable" is not a reasoning. IgelRM (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scan for Korea-related AfDs

Korea

Laos

Malaysia

Iskandariah Bridge

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia. 4meter4 (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* - Sourcing has been added. — Maile (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vishen Lakhiani

AfDs for this article:

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

I came across this page after seeing it in the portfolio of a paid editing company. Prior discussion was closed as "no consensus" but I do not see enough for him to be considered notable. 🄻 🄰 13:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Malaysia. 🄻 🄰 13:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I still think the sources I mentioned last time are enough to show notability. BBC, the NY Times and the rest. AUTHOR at least due to the book reviews/discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - paid editing is an existential threat to us. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not sure why this debate keeps happening. The sourcing is there. Docmoates (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is very promotional and also fails WP:SIGCOV. They do not meet WP:AUTHOR. Aneirinn (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Words (TV series)

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

All unsourced and doesn't seem to have any notability. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "The drama will be re-aired again, on 12 January 2019 at 4:30pm" doesn't inspire much confidence in thinking that there is any cutrent interest. Athel cb (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have been added. A bag of many boiled potatoes (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I've subsequently removed what you added because they don't actually cite anything for the article. The first one only has the Chinese character for the title of the show once, but when translated state "How to Say I Love You". And the translation doesn't make it seem useful to support any statement in the lead as placed. The third source again doesn't have any useful show info in it to support what is on the article. This second one though appears through a Google translated page to possibly promising to use as a citation, but as I don't read Chinese I couldn't accurately judge. However, that still doesn't appear to make it show that this series meets notability and WP:GNG. Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gong Balai

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

Unsourced since 2005. Fails WP:GNG / WP:GEOLAND.4meter4 (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's listed as a voting district on page 305 here [16] with 1486 voters. It's not clear how we should cover Malaysian geography on Wikipedia but absent a suitable merge/redirect topic, we shouldn't delete this. Katzrockso (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is the page on the Malaysian Wikipedia; ms:Kampung Gong Balai (kampung is village) and it's large enough to have a mosque ms:Masjid Kampung Gong Balai. Katzrockso (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, there may be sourcing in other languages or offline but we don't even seem to have a recognition that it is legally recognized which is the very least we would need in order to presume that those sources do exist. Note that the other language wikis have entries but no sigcov unless I'm missing something (that would largely kill the non-english sourcing presumption even if we had legal recognition). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is something being a voting district not legal recognition? It's also on government maps here [17], pages 35 & 42. I found several digitized news articles that mention this town in the context of fishing as well on government websites ([18] p. 2+4).

Here's another government website listing a lot as located in the village [19]. It's also home to a "Gong Balai Health Clinic" [20] (which seems to be under the Ministry of Health of Malaysia somehow here [21]), and an elementary school ([22]). It's used in the official government documents that list the mosques as the address of the mosque ([23], warning this downloads a xlsx file). Government officials talk about how late birth registration is more common in this village [24]

What do you expect to show something is a legally recognized place? Villages are recognized at the state level in Malaysia and the relevant government websites are either inaccessible to me or offline.

@Horse Eye's Back @4meter4 Katzrockso (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No that wouldn't count as legal recognition... Have you tried just finding the sigcov? That would solve the issue of presuming its existance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of villages from the Malaysian government [25], and "Kg. Gong Balai" is on line 17268 (Kg is short for kampung, which means village) and the village has village code 110602007.

What counts as "legal recognition" to you? Villages are classified on the state level in Malaysia, and considered a "Kampung" once it is legally recognized.

Malaysian media is scarcely online, let alone coverage about small villages. Hard to find government statistics when the half of the government websites don't open for me. The Malaysian government document archive (https://govdocs.sinarproject.org/) doesn't work, neither do the local government websites for Terrengganu state.

@Horse Eye's Back Katzrockso (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Batu Tiga–Sungai Buloh Highway

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Wawa Zainal (via WP:PROD on 9 September 2023)

Mongolia

List of wars involving Mongolia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong Keep unnecessary nomination, just remove things that are irrelevant

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

Nepal

Ninglashaini Secondary Boarding School

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

No indication of SIGCOV in independent reliable sources ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nepal. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:NSCHOOL. Svartner (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nepal Premier League records and statistics

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

No evidence that a separate stats article is needed, as it doesn't pass WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. Instead, it's just a WP:NOTSTATS violation, as the NPL is in its second year and so most of the stats don't have any longevity or notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Cricket, Lists, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Vestrian24Bio 09:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Champawat Tiger

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

Trash expansion article using blogs and wordpress sites with spam gaming refs. Atrocious. Originally from redirect to Tiger attack#The Champawat Tiger Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, History, Nepal, and Uttarakhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article fails to pass WP:GNG — EarthDude (Talk) 08:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a book titled No Beast So Fierce: The Terrifying True Story of the Champawat Tiger, the Deadliest Animal in History, it was reviewed by the Scientific American[26] and the WSJ[27]. The article is based on it. I don't see why it falls under the "blogs and WordPress sites with spam gaming refs" classification. Kelob2678 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does Man-Eaters of Kumaon count as a reliable source or is it too old? Orchastrattor (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why should it be too old? thanks! Keep, in view of the two books with significant coverage mentioned here+ sources on the page +https://www.forbes.com/sites/scotttravers/2025/01/16/meet-the-worlds-deadliest-man-eater-killed-over-400-people-and-escaped-an-army/ +https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780062678843 and plenty of other sources. ~2025-38537-34 (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence of Kelob2678 and Orchastrattor. Srnec (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Forbes reference is non-rs. The fact the book is notable doesn't make the article notable, since the article isn't a book article. Its about the tiger only. We will take a detailed look at the references this week to see if they they are sinificant, in-depth and independent. The article will need copyedit to remove crap in pop culture which is zero connection to the subject. scope_creep^Talk 21:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

South Asia Peace Initiatives

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

No indication of notability per WP:ORG. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a lot of coverage from Unification Church sources like the Universal Peace Foundation, and the usual social media, but no significant coverage in reliable, indepedent sources. Best I could find was an article about the Prime Minister of Nepal speaking at a SAPI-sponsored event [28], but the group is only mentioned in passing, in article about his speech. Wikishovel (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Nepal, and India. Wikishovel (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. Poor sources that are mostly 404 error. No secondary independent reliable sources with significant coverage on the organization to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- verifiable info to Unification Church which the org has ties to.Lorraine Crane (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Proposed deletions

Pardeshi (via WP:PROD on 11 April 2025)
Zindagi Rocks (via WP:PROD on 11 April 2025)

Deletion review

Pakistan

Brahui Confederacy

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

This entire article relies on a single unreliable source. It also faces issues of WP:POVPUSHING, WP:OR and WP:NOTABILITY, and appears to be content fork of Khanate of Kalat. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. Fade258 (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete I agree, if the content is covered on another page then it should be a redirect, any knew info can be added to the Khanate of Kalaf page if there is enough evidence (which this page certainly doesn’t have), I suggest a redirect to the proper page. Perhaps even a warning for the original creator who needs to understand that one source cannot be used. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The term "Brahui Confederacy" gets legitimate use, but I do not believe it is a distinct topic from the Khanate of Kalat. Srnec (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sholay (1984 film)

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

First off, this is absolutely not to be confused with the 1975 Indian film Sholay, which is unquestionably notable.

However, this unrelated Pakistani film with an identical title does not appear to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG and I was unable to find any significant coverage. It only cites a very barren IMDB page and a dead-link database, and there is no sourcing for the film on any actors' articles either. MidnightMayhem (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search on google about the topic but didn't find any references containing significant coverage or film review about the topic to meet WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Please ping me If I missed anything. Fade258 (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per Fade258. Svartner (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MOVIE While searching for information about this film, I did not find a single reliable, independent source that would talk about its notability Nagirakitan (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to List of Pakistani films of 1984. It has a notable cast and has an entry there; it can be helpful to have a link to that page.--~2025-38537-34 (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killi Faizo

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

Unreferenced since 2005. Not clear if this place passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

delete unref and I failed to find significant coverage (although I must admot I didnt ttry really hard). --Altenmann >talk 04:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tagged as unsourced 16 years, somehow this survived the last reference drive. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MfD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions

Philippines

Gino Roque IV

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Kevin Biol

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

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

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

Arvic Tan

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Food and drink, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Arvic Tan meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR based on significant coverage in independent sources such as . These sources are ned with his employers and provide substantial coverage. Madame Joaquin (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such as...? His employers are WP:PRIMARY and are not WP:RS, failing WP:GNG, no matter how extensive. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Sy

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Most references are from GMA Integrated News, which is his employer, or are WP:INTERVIEWs, failing WP:PRIMARY. Some references are indeed third party, but are of the WP:PROMOTIONAL type. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hilabaan Island

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

Doubtful notability and misleading label. The article talks about a barangay rather than an island and content here, most of it atrociously-written and unbecoming for the competency standards of Wikipedoa, was made by SPAs with probable undisclosed COIs Borgenland (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philippines and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barangays do not meet notability standards on their own, and there's little in the way of sourcing. It's possible the island is notable, and there shouldn't be any issue with recreating an article at this title if someone wants to, but not about the barangay. SportingFlyer T·C 22:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of ABS-CBN specials aired

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. This is one of many programming lists for ABS-CBN and serves no purpose other than to promote the station by showing the type of content it has previously aired. There is nothing that talks about the list as a whole so also fails WP:NLIST. None of these seem to be original programming either so it is basically a failure of WP:NOTTVGUIDE. CNMall41 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Philippines. CNMall41 (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outside one YouTube 'source' of an ABS-CBN network promo (which no longer exists because the account was taken out for copyright abuse), the rest of the sources are all from ABS-CBN and violate PRIMARY, leaving this as a completely unsourced article. Much of the content is already part of List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN or the main ABS-CBN article describing program rights already, some of the lists include made-up genres or judgements about programming appropriateness without any sources, or list 'specials' that are just part of regular series. There's also a lot of links to generic things (especially about election coverage which just link to each election's article with nothing about television coverage; it would only be surprising if they didn't cover an election as a national network). But beyond that, there is a large amount of article content from other deleted ABS-CBN list articles that were merged into this to preserve the content despite clear article deletion decisions with no allowance for merging in those AfDs. Though I understand the entire ABS-CBN license situation and that programming is disbursed among them, it's also never a good sign when we get footnotes for programming on other networks which are certainly not ABS-CBN, as that should be explained in the program article, not here. Nathannah • 📮 01:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE --Lenticel ^(talk) 14:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly not WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NLIST. ROY is WAR Talk! 00:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jarlo Bâse

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

Fails WP:NSINGER; virtually none of the WP:RS references pass WP:GNG, while some that do are not WP:RS (see WP:LIONHEARTV), or is ABS-CBN, which owns the label Star Records which signed the singer, making it WP:PRIMARY. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. ROY is WAR Talk! 22:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Untenable aricle. Geschichte (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinoy Auto Trader

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

Shortlived company that lasted just 15 months; article supported by lots of churnalism and recycled press releases in sector media, but I don’t think this passes WP:NORG. Mccapra (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Internet, and Philippines. Mccapra (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NORG. As stated by nom, the only coverage comes from press releases. RedShellMomentum ☎ ✎ 03:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saan Darating ang Umaga (song)

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

Not passed in WP:NSONG. ROY is WAR Talk! 00:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Philippines. ROY is WAR Talk! 00:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can you explain why it doesn't pass NSONG, and what WP:BEFORE was conducted before nominating? Article definitely needs work, but being covered by (at least) four other notable artists counts towards WP:NSONG #3. I note that it's also been used as the theme song of both a 1983 film, and three different TV shows, so the question should be whether enough SIGCOV exists to establish notability. I'm not familiar with Filipino sources (so will withhold my !vote), but I'd be surprised if there was nothing. Nil🥝 00:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was barely mentioned, and I only found it upon checking sources such as Ref10, and Ref5. In Ref10, Raymond talks about the song, but it's only a small piece of information and insufficient per WP:SIGCOV. Beyond that, the song was simply covered by other notable artists. I don't know if this is applied on WP:NCOVER. A redirect to Darating ang Umaga (transl. Till Morning Comes) I am neutral for that. ROY is WAR Talk! 01:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Pag-ibig Kong Ito

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

Not passed in WP:NSONG. ROY is WAR Talk! 00:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Philippines. ROY is WAR Talk! 00:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination does not specify the problem. What's wrong with the references? Have you tried mergers? Have you tried looking for other sources? In the alternative, at least a redirect should be considered. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Home and Away Invitational League

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:ORG, WP:NSPORT, and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Philippines. 4meter4 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Zero sources, impossible to WP:V. Svartner (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Volleyball. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles proposed for deletion (WP:PROD)

Shampoo Ni Lola (via WP:PROD on 21 March 2025)
Flag of Cagayan (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)

Shortcut

WP:SGDSWP:SGDS

Singapore

PRISM+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

South Korea

Inpyeong-dong

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:ORG / WP:GNG. A sub-department within a sub-division of a city government is generally not encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neighbourhoods must meet GNG, and this is unsourced. If my understanding of dong is incorrect in Korean spatial hierarchy is incorrect, please let me know. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2030 South Korean presidential election

AfDs for this article:

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

The article just contains stuff like polling (And polls for elections can happen way before election season, sometimes shortly after an election has finished), the and basic facts that are the same at every election such as whether the incumbent is eligible or not, and how the president is elected, and that he/she/they (Or whatever subject pronouns the elected president uses) is elected to serve a five-year term. Nothing on who will be running, the issues that are expected to be defining factors in the decisions of the voters. It is too soon. A good ATD would be draftify, but I am also concerned about the potential lack of encyclopaedic value from sources to add within a 6 month frame, that this could end up being deleted via G13. Anyways, what should be done with this article? Regardless, I firmly believe it is too soon for a stand alone article. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and South Korea. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't even see the discussion only 12 days prior. I didn't bother checking, and it honestly didn't even occur to me in the case I just assumed that this would be a first nomination, and that if there was a prior one, it would have been deleted. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom, can be undeleted if deleted per G13. Lee Jae Myung uses he/him pronouns. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LaundryPizza03 In regards to pronouns, I ment whoever is elected. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Opinion polling for the next South Korean presidential election, given that its almost entirely opinion polling. This is the format used for almost every single other country (See: UK, Germany, Australia, Poland, Japan etc.) aesurias (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the format used; in all the cases you mention, there is an article on the election (i.e. Next United Kingdom general election, Next German federal election, Next Australian federal election, Next Polish parliamentary election, Next Japanese general election), not just one on the opinion polls. Number 5 7 19:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure, but all of those are expected to be held 2026-2029. I think we should just hold off until next year when there will be more information for a standalone article aesurias (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The UK article was created around a month after the 2024 election, so a similar period in advance that this South Korean one is for. The other ones have shorter terms, but in most cases were created shortly after the previous election. Number 5 7 23:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good argument. aesurias (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments in the AfD that closed as 'keep' less than two weeks ago (i.e. it's long established that articles on future elections are fine as long as there is information specific to the election in question, such as opinion polls). Number 5 7 19:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Number 57. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 20:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Number 57/precedent. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Choegowi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed deletions

Taiwan related deletions

Da Mafan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. RedShellMomentum ☎ 22:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vivian Hsu discography: Fails WP:NALBUM. No SIGCOV in RS. RedShellMomentum ☎ 22:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand

Dao Pra Sook

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

Unsourced article on a Thai soap opera. I could not verify this content. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. 4meter4 (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Thai version of the article had plenty of references. I have added them to the English version. When you are evaluating an article about a non-English topic, it is often valuable to look at the corresponding articles in other language Wikipedias. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain about the reliability of about half of those sources. Some look questionable.4meter4 (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand proposed deletions

Vietnam

Phan Văn Bàn

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

Half the content in this brief bio isn’t even about the subject. He was a prisoner for a long time in Vietnam, but I don’t think that alone makes him notable. I don’t think there is enough here to pass WP:BASIC. Mccapra (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Vietnam. Mccapra (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.