Back ဝီကီပီးဒီးယား:ဖျက်ပစ်ရမည့်ဆောင်းပါးများ/မှတ်တမ်း/ယနေ့ Burmese Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/今天 Chinese

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Shortcut
Purge

27 June 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< June 26 June 28 >

Purge server cache

LLM aided design

[edit]
LLM aided design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. If this is notable, it needs WP:TNT because it cannot be divorced from its creation by AI. Wholly inappropriately sourced with unreliable sources, fails WP:V, which is a key tenet of Wikipedia. Previoulsy sent to draft with the rationale While not conclusively AI-generated, the writing style, structure, and tone are consistent with LLM-assisted authorship. It likely had human curation or editing layered on top of content produced or scaffolded by a large language model. Further, the references are almost all deprecated sources. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent author @Manvi jha13 came onto IRC Live Chat asking for assistance with this. They've repeated the article was not created with AI: they state they are pursuing a PHD in this topic so wrote the draft as an academic essay instead of an Wikipedia article. Have given guidance, and assuming good faith. qcne (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QcneThank you so much for your message.
@Timtrent, thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft and for providing your feedback — I sincerely appreciate your efforts.
It is rather intriguing to see the draft being marked as AI-generated again. I have stated in my talk page for the article and would like the opportunity to clarify again that no content of the given page has been generated by AI. The AI tools have been used for vocabulary suggestion, but in no case for text generation. I believe that given the academic use and exploration of the topic, along with the fact that I am a PhD student mostly engaged in academic writing, gives the article a similar tone, which I have tried to improve since your suggestions. Please do let me know if there are any additional areas/sections/perspectives you would suggest for me to improve on.
Additionally, I have noticied that you have reservations regarding the citations? I believe all the citations are academic publications. Please let me know if and how I can improve them.
Thank you,
Manvi Manvi jha13 (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Manvi jha13, in reference to your claim on Talk:LLM aided design that "The use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement", could you please disclose in full detail the extent to which you used an LLM to generate the article, including the content, section headings, references, and formatting? Additionally, could you please disclose the name and versions of the AI tool(s) that you have been using to edit Wikipedia, as well as whether you are using those tools to author your comments in discussions like this one? — Newslinger talk 20:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Newslinger
When I state that "the use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement," I am referring specifically to minor assistance such as suggesting synonyms or checking for spelling and grammatical errors (ChatGPT-4o). Importantly, no AI tools were used to draft or generate any content or contextual material.
Additionally, I want to clarify that AI was never used in drafting or contributing to any discussions or comments. I reaffirm that at no point was AI employed to generate new text or ideas, thereby eliminating any concern regarding hallucinations or the reliability of the content. Manvi jha13 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Manvi jha13, you made the edit Special:Diff/1296403283 to the article within the last hour. How did you generate the references and the citation code that you added into the article? — Newslinger talk 20:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean generate references? They are the papers I have read, most of them are initailly made available on Arxiv and later published via conferences or journals. Why would it be difficult to find them?
As for citiation code, it is a rather starightforward format one can write it themselves, in any case to simplyfy my work, I wrote a small python script that takes bibtex format citaion and converts to wikipedia style. This helps reduce manual effort, and ensures consistency. I’ve made sure all included sources are verifiable and meet the reliability standards expected here. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger, My apologies, I missed to ping you in my response, please refer to my reply above. Thank you in advance. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the citation code were generated with a Python script, it's not clear why the code would use plaintext instead of normalized citation templates such as {{Cite journal}}, or why it would mix wikitext formatting with Markdown formatting (which is not used by Wikipedia).
This article exhibits too many characteristics of LLM-generated content to remain in article space. I am unconvinced that "The use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement" when the the very first revision (Special:Permalink/1294545580) already shows heavy signs of being LLM-generated, including the excessive use of lists and the idiosyncratic use of title case that are associated with AI chatbots. Draftify, and the draft should not be moved back into article space without going through the Articles for creation (AfC) process. — Newslinger talk 21:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger
Thank you for your feedback. I don't understand why a python script would be limited to citation template, it would be able to take input and produce results based on how I program it. So I respectfully but completely disagree with this claim of yours.
Additionally, as I already stated, the use of ChatGPT was restricted to the use for checking grammar and spelling errors. To highlight the procedure goes like- I write a draft -> I pass it to ChatGPT with a prompt asking to fix any spelling or grammatical errors in the given text and just use that. This procedure in no way known to me generates new text. Additionally, in order to clarify again, this is the topic I am working on for PhD, the academic tone and style (including the usage of lists and detailed descriptions) is thus a result of the same Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the version of your draft before you processed it with ChatGPT?​ — Newslinger talk 21:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger
Thank you for your question.
I would not have the article as a whole but yes I can get all the paragraphs I processed through the ChatGPT history. Would you like samples or screenshots (or other methods you deem satisfactory for proving, since that is what we are doing here)?
Honestly it is a bit intriguing to see how intolerant the Wikipedia community is of the academic community and their writing style. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you could provide the pre-ChatGPT content in text form on the article talk page, Talk:LLM aided design, that would help establish that the article is not LLM-generated and also help editors improve the article by having your original writing available to reference.
The Wikipedia community appreciates the academic community in general, but many Wikipedians have a negative view of LLM-generated content. On Wikipedia, articles are expected to conform to the Manual of Style, and LLM-generated articles almost always deviate from the style guidelines in much more distinct ways than the average new editor would.
To clarify my previous comment, I did not say that a Python script would be limited to generating citation templates, although I do find it unusual that your script converts citations to "wikipedia style" by partially outputting Markdown instead of using a normalized citation template format. — Newslinger talk 22:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger
Thank you for your feedback.
Sure I can add pre-ChatGPT text for reference, just to clarify, do you expect the entire article or a few paragraphs would be enough?
Additionally for the python script, I do not use any libraries, my script simply takes the BibTex(easier to extract from), extracts details like paper name, author name etc.. and simply arranged them in a template I give. The template is the one I found to be the best fit for my scenario, it can be heavily varying from the general trend but I don't think that should be an issue? Manvi jha13 (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are able to post the entire pre-ChatGPT article, that would be preferred as it would be most helpful to all interested editors. For your citation script, I highly recommend revising your script template to use Wikipedia's Citation Style 1 templates to ensure that it consistently meets Wikipedia's citation style guidelines.​ — Newslinger talk 22:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Newslinger
I have added a sample in the talk section of the article. Please refer to it for context. I decided not to include the entire article, as I did not want to create a lengthy and potentially cluttered post there. However, if you still have any reservations about the use of AI in the article based on the example provided, please let me know.
Additionally, I found the article WP:CHATGPT, which clearly states that using AI to refine text is acceptable, as long as the content does not involve hallucinations, inaccuracies, or unverifiable claims. Given that the text in this article has been thoroughly reviewed and all sources are properly cited, I would like to ask if you have identified any instances where this might have been an issue? Manvi jha13 (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, don't worry about your disclosures resulting in a "lengthy and potentially cluttered post", as the content you post on Talk:LLM aided design will certainly be within Wikipedia's page size limit. You can organize your content by wrapping any section(s) of it between the {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} templates to prevent any clutter. It shouldn't take long to post the entire pre-ChatGPT article, as you have already indicated that you have access to your ChatGPT logs. I'm requesting the disclosure of the entire pre-ChatGPT article because the information provided so far, frankly, does not convince me that the article is not LLM-generated. There are multiple paragraphs within the article body that lack inline citations, which is a serious concern with respect to WP:CHATGPT § Risks and relevant policies. — Newslinger talk 21:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thank you Qcne. I think that must be interpreted as Manvi jha13's opinion that it should be kept. This does not address the lack of WP:V in the nomination. I will accept their assurance about AI generation in good faith and strike that part of the nomination. It has now been drafified twice, which is one more time than DRAFTOBJECT allows. I do not feel it may be returned to draft space without a full consensus under these circumstaces, crcumstances whcih we would not be in without unilateral moves to mainspace (allowed, but unwise in this case). It may, however, be spared that via WP:HEY. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As nominator I have no objection to consensus based draftification, though I would prefer an assurance that, if sent back to draft, the creating editor will submit for review and work with the outcome of that review and any further iteration. That might be a closure condition, in an ideal world. [[If WP:HEY has happened pre closure then it shoul dbe retained. If I am notified I will consider withdrawal. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Engineering, and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtrent
    Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback and suggestions. I have revised the article accordingly. The updated version no longer includes arXiv or other non–peer-reviewed sources. I hope these changes help improve the article's quality and bring it closer to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and reliability. Manvi jha13 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft: is the best option. Unfortunately, it's nearly entirely sourced to arXiv articles, which are not reliable sources. Pre-prints, meaning they've not been peer-reviewed yet. Once they get published, they would have to then show reliable sourcing. This article is also perhaps a bit too technical for a general audience. Needs a rewrite and better sourcing at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    or let it incubate offline and submit it for the AfC review. This wouldn't pass as is anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article should be improved, then in the longer term merged with AI-driven design automation. This is another new page, with a more general overview (not all AIs are LLMs). Both pages have issues, but the topic is surely worth keeping. LouScheffer (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @LouScheffer,
    Thank you so much for your valuable review. I would greatly appreciate your guidance or suggestions on how the article could be improved.
    While AI-driven design automation does involve hardware design, it is fundamentally different from LLM-aided design. AI-driven automation typically refers to techniques like MLIR or the use of Bayesian optimization and supervised/unsupervised/reinforcement learning to improve stages of the design process. However, its scope is generally limited to optimization rather than generation.
    In contrast, LLM-aided design focuses on the ability to generate descriptions, code, and even complete designs from natural language input; something beyond the capabilities of traditional AI-driven automation. This distinction, I believe, is key to understanding the scope and novelty of LLM-aided approaches. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TNT Are sure this entire article is not LLM generated? It has a weird, unencyclopedic promotional tone. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (with no shade intended to User:Manvi jha13): I am interested in the assertion, "The AI tools have been used for vocabulary suggestion, but in no case for text generation." Vocabulary is part of text, and suggesting it entails generation, does it not? I am interested because part of my day job is to teach writing courses, and I often hear from students things like, "I didn't use AI. I only used <LLM-based app> to <do writing-related thing>." Again, with no shade to Manvi jha13, it seems to me that the definitions of terms such as AI, LLM, and generate are currently unsettled. This is something that might eventually be mentioned in this or a similar article (though, of course, only after it has been discussed in reliable secondary sources). Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Cnilep
    Thank you so much for your feedback and interest in the topic. I'd like to offer some insights based on my understanding and research into LLMs so far.
    To the best of my understanding, it would be considered "text generation" in the context of Wikipedia if the entire article or part of it were artificially created, which could potentially lead to false information or hallucinations (a known risk even with the latest LLMs). However, when the use of an LLM is solely for refinement purposes- such as improving grammar, suggesting synonyms, or rephrasing sentences- it's comparable to using a thesaurus tool or the inbuilt features in MS Word/Grammarly that flag grammatical issues and suggest more suitable word choices. In my view, this does not lead to the generation of entirely new or potentially inaccurate information.
    Many people are opting for AI tools over MS Word or Grammarly because they can save a lot of time in the writing process. However, after reflecting on the depth of the discussion on this page, I'm starting to wonder if that time saved is worth it! Manvi jha13 (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd stick to the old-fashioned stuff, Manvi jha13. It doesn't take a lot more time and using it develops writing and vocabulary skills. Old-fashioned tools like thesauruses, Grammarly and your brain are much more reliable.
    Wikipedia editors are becoming increasingly wary of any LLM material being used on Wikipedia since it's still unreliable. Of particular concern for us, LLMs tasked with generating an article will produce an impeccably formatted list of footnoted references which turn out to be either inapplicable or just plain made up; that's the kiss of death for Wikipedia's reliability. So if someone senses you're using LLMs, it develops trust issues. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I checked all the article's references and verified that almost all existed (one or two links didn't work for me). All were at least somewhat relevant (I am not an AI expert so "somewhat" was as close as I could figure). All but the several non-peer reviewed refs already discussed above came from very reputable sources such as the IEEE and the ACM. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dinu Andrei Popescu

[edit]
Dinu Andrei Popescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by a single-purpose account, who's attempted to create this article since 2021. Article clearly lacks coverage from reliable sources, and some appear to be either self-published or from unreliable sites. Subject fails WP:NJOURNALIST. CycloneYoris talk! 01:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Shah

[edit]
Sagar Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find any independent coverage, as almost all of the sources are either interviews or passing mentions in unreliable or unbylined sources. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, it's completely absurd to think this person might not be notable. They founded the most successful chess journalism / media company ever, and are one of the most well-known media figures in chess. The nominator lacks the WP:COMPETENCE to be familiar with the subject and did not put adequate effort to look for sources. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources from chessbase.in are WP:SPS, and thesportzplanet.com, perlenvombodensee.de, and fountainink.in are more like blogs with little or no editorial oversight. To clarify, ChessBase has existed since 1986 and the Indian version was only co-founded by him. Claiming that “they founded the most successful chess journalism/media company ever, and are one of the most well-known media figures in chess” reflects your bias and is not policy based. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Perlen vom Bodensee is not just a blog, [8], it is a very reliable source, also trusted by de-wp, for what it's worth. - Squasher (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please double check? Because from what I see, the only author who consistently writes on Perlen vom Bodensee is Conrad Schormann, who is also the founder. Six articles were written by Stefan Löffler and a few by Roland Neumeier. The translated DE wiki article states that "The site's editor is Conrad Schormann, who is supported by a team of 18 authors.", which I believe is misleading based on what I’ve seen so far and the fact that the article has very few edits also doesn’t help its reliability. In any case, having a page on DE wiki doesn’t automatically make the source reliable, especially since the standards on EN wiki are significantly higher, which I believe you already know. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to add or to check. I saw the article this afternoon by chance and also the the AfD, with a comment I did not completely agree and just wanted to leave a note that might help. The source is viewed as reliable in de-wp by the chess portal, if you do not agree, that is fine for me. Sagar Shah is at least in my eyes a relevant topic for someone like me, who follows chess purely from an interested viewer point of view. He is very well known in the chess eco system, in de-wp he is notable already just by having reached the IM title. If he doesn't meet the criteria here, because no sources can be found, that are seen as sufficient, so be it. - Squasher (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No snow in the forecast here. Any further input on the sourcing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuquanying

[edit]
Yuquanying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable intersection. In attempting to source this article, I was unable to find any valid sources about this particular intersection, much less anything that would contribute to notability. Garsh (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems odd to me that the article is focused on an intersection. Isn't Yuquanying a major road, not just an intersection? (There seem to be many articles about the road and building complexes on the road via Google News.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability and I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication of notability. Jeepday (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Yuquanying Subdistrict. The Chinese name here is 玉泉营, which seems to refer to a variety of topics in that area, but I think all can be covered at the main subdistrict article. That article could be expanded with this source, which covers the history of the area in depth, though its reliability could be debated [9]. Toadspike [Talk] 11:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Sources have been added, focus has been expanded to mention Yuquanying's 800 years of history as one of the 18 floricultural villages of the Fengtai district of Beijing before becoming the site of a major highway intersection and overpass. (OK I'm still in the process of untangling how best to cite and/or edit that section, which could still take several days as I try to work on other things.) Sincerely appreciate the pointer to the administrative subdistrict page provided by Toadspike (not to mention their spirit of investigation which is what makes these geography AfD puzzles interesting), but the modern administrative subdistrict article can remain separate from the Yuquanying article about the history of the village since the Jin dynasty. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have mixed feelings about this – I considered expanding this article, but decided that Yuquanying Subdistrict, an article about a populated place, is more suitable for this information. I don't mean to be rude, but you have effectively hijacked this article and changed its topic to one that we already cover elsewhere. Toadspike [Talk] 09:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The 800-year history of the village of Yuquanying, where there is now also a highway overpass, is not covered at all in the current article about Yuquanying Subdistrict, which focuses on an administrative region established in 2021. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can only have one topic claiming notablity per GEOLAND on this, and here it should be the legally-recognized subdistrict. Of the three sources you link, the first is about the subdistrict, the second lists Yuquanying among other subdistricts like Majiapu Subdistrict and some places that don't seem to have legal recognition, and the third is a mathematical analysis of traffic at the intersection that doesn't actually tell us anything about the intersection. I am not convinced this shows the need for a split from the main subdistrict article. Toadspike [Talk] 10:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, we can still keep looking for more sources; those were just indicative and as I said, it's still a work in progress. The first source actually leads with the modern Yuquanying subdistrict but the third paragraph is about the historical village of Yuquanying and its 800-year history as a flower town. The second source is interesting because it references the historical (centuries-old) concept of the 18 villages of Fengtai district, which is discussed elsewhere in books and suggests a fruitful line of research, and also provides more context about the floricultural history of the region. (Actually not sure what to do with "Beijing Yuquanying highway" in the third source; not even sure if it's actually about the actual intersection or overpass. Is it? Very unclear from looking at the article.) Anyway Wikipedia is full of multiple articles about the same geographic location. We could easily keep splitting this article into sub-topics and at minimum, Yuquanying would have to be retained as a disambiguation page. (And yes, you are correct: it is more polite to assume good faith per WP:AGF.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: per Toadspike, I don't see a convincing argument for keeping both Yuquanying Subdistrict and Yuquanying, the history part of this article, which I guess was added post-nom, can be put in the subdistrict article and this can redirect there. Moritoriko (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not even clear that the administrative region is geographically in the same place as the old village! In fact, it subsumes several old neighbouring villages, possibly. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Chinese geography and naming is a bit outside my wheelhouse, but would you say it is likely that the name of the subdistrict was chosen because of the old village? Doing further research on the "18 villages of Fengtai" is not showing me much of anything either, perhaps that information should be put in that article instead. Moritoriko (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly the kind of assumption that leads to misinformation on Wikipedia, particularly with regard to geographical history. Every claim made on Wikipedia should be verifiable per WP:V. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why I am asking you if this is true, and doing it in the AfD instead of putting it in the article. I'm not going to put unverified information out there >( Moritoriko (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At minimum, this discussion could be closed as no consensus and if other editors seriously want to pursue a merge discussion, they can start one, though I remain unconvinced from the arguments made above that the now significantly expanded and referenced Yuquanying (covering the 800-year history of Yuquanying village and the surrounding area through the early 21st century) should be merged into the Yuquanying Subdistrict, an article focused on the governance and boundaries of a modern administrative region that was created in 2021. Also, WP:HEY. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Going through the sources added since my last comment here:
    • [10] mentions Yuquanying market once, among a list of others. Not SIGCOV.
    • [11] mentions that a segment of the Beijing–Kaifeng highway starts at the Yuquanying interchange. Not sigcov.
    • [12] is about the local government of Yuquanying Subdistrict, which already has its own article.
    • [13] Two photos of Yuquanying, with captions that tell us nothing about the place. Not sigcov.
    • [14] mentions Yuquanying Flower Market among a list of others, alongside its opening hours. This is not sigcov; often such coverage promoting businesses/events is also not considered independent.
    • [15] is a passing mention, not sigcov, though it does provide the interesting factoid that the Yuquanying Flower Market was "[Beijing's] largest potted flower wholesale market" at the time (in 2003).
    • [16] is a government report on a fire at a business (玉泉营环岛家具城, 'Yuquanying Roundabout Furniture City'), not really about the town.
    The article Yuquanying Subdistrict doesn't have to meet the GNG because it meets NPLACE, but we can't make the same carveout twice for the same place. I remain unconvinced that we need two separate articles and strongly stand by my original position that these articles should be merged. Toadspike [Talk] 14:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that "We can't make the same carveout twice for the same place" is not policy – it actually demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the broader landscape of Geography and History articles across Wikipedia. Wikipedia is vast though, and there is no deadline, so I would recommend joining up with more WikiProjects where you might get exposed to a larger volume of articles. (I find my own perspective changes all the time, the more I read and the more I edit and the more I participate across different WikiProjects.) Cielquiparle (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We've only got one editor in favour of keeping the article, but it's been expanded considerably since the delete !votes, so we don't really have consensus for anything else, either. Suonii180, Jeepday, do you care to revise your positions? Anyone else have an opinion on whether this is a suitable merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man's armor (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

[edit]
Iron Man's armor (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created as a split from Iron Man's armor in other media that was later merged back to Iron Man's armor following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Man's armor in other media. There's no reason for the Marvel Cinematic Universe to be separated from Iron Man's armor anymore. Both articles are short enough that after merge they'd be within WP:PROSESIZE, and the Iron Man's armor contained a lot of unreferenced plotcruft that I recently removed (effectively the 'in other media' stuff). While there are sources that talk about how Iron Man looked in various movies, there's no reason to split this - it's also doing a disservice to the readers, most of whom will end up at the main IMA article and not see the good content in the article here; the Iron Man's armor article now has a tiny, one sentence section on IMA in other media, stating that "Iron Man's armors feature prominently in several films set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe." It should be replaced with the content of this article. I fail to see how the movie-universe armor has separate stand-alone notability versus its basic concept, and why it couldn't be merged. There was a discussion of this previously at Talk:Iron_Man's_armor#Merge_from_Iron_Man's_armor_(Marvel_Cinematic_Universe), but most comments were pretty much "just votes" with no meaningful rationale, IMHO. Anyway, as far reasons for deletions, I want to reiterate that this article is a bad WP:CFORK of dubious stand-alone WP:GNG that failed both in the past and now the logic of WP:SIZESPLIT. The fate of Iron Man's armor in other media was decided at AFD, the fate of the article that was split out of it should follow suit, given the failure of merge discussion to produce meaningful rationales (WP:NOVOTE). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Riaan Manser

[edit]
Riaan Manser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about a person with one source that reports on the WP:SINGLEEVENT. The rest is unsourced puffery. No longstanding WP:SIGCOV. ZimZalaBim talk 03:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Spragg, Iain (2014). "Manser's African Odyssey". Cycling's Strangest Tales: Extraordinary But True Stories. London: Portico. pp. 110–111. ISBN 978-1-909396-49-4. Retrieved 2025-06-21 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "That's a hell of a lot of pedalling if you were to undertake the epic journey on a humble bicycle, but such trifling obstacles did not deter South African adventurer Riaan Manser when he decided to accept exactly that daunting challenge, an ambitious expedition which very nearly killed him. Manser set off on his trusty mountain bike from Cape Town in September 2003. He averaged an impressive 88.5km (55 miles) per day and after two years, two months and 15 days in the saddle, travelling through 34 different countries, he had become the first person to circumnavigate Africa on two wheels. ... Manser's feat was recognised when he was named 'Adventurer of the Year' by Out There magazine in 2006 and granted an audience with Nelson Mandela. He politely declined an offer to work for the Liberian Tourist Board."

    2. Razzetti, Steve (2010). Great Cycle Journeys of the World. London: New Holland Publishers. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-84773-463-1. Retrieved 2025-06-21 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Riaan Manser from Cape Town went one better. In September 2003 he set out on his mountain bike to ride the whole way around the continent. Two years, two months and two days later he was back, having pedalled an incredible 36,500 km (22,680 miles) through 34 counties, lost 14 kg (31 lbs) in weight, learned French, Portuguese and Arabic, eaten monkeys, rats and bats and been kidnapped by child-soldiers in Liberia. The journeys described in the pages that follow may not be quite as epic, but they will certainly open your eyes to the wonders of this most wonderful of continents."

    3. Simontacchi, Andrew V. (2014-06-18). "World renowned adventurer Riaan Manser makes stop in Great Kills Marina after 5-month row across Atlantic (with photos)". Staten Island Advance. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

      The article notes: "That's been the reality for Riaan Manser, a renowned world traveler and self-proclaimed professional adventurer whose five-month, 5,000-mile rowboat trek from Morocco to New York City included a stop at the Atlantis Marina in Great Kills on Wednesday. ... The long-haired, long-bearded Manser, 40, was hanging out with Ms. Geldenguys in their home one day when they decided they would venture to New York City in an incredible way -- via rowboat. Without a support staff, the couple set off in December, with a portioned supply of food and water donated from a South African grocer. ... Manser is a traveling author and public speaker outside of his professional adventuring"

    4. "SA adventurer Riaan Manser and his wife Vasti were stuck on a small boat together for 173 days – What they learnt could help you through lockdown". News24. 2020-04-13. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

      The article notes: "In 2009 Riaan Manser set on a world first when he became the first person to circumnavigate Madagascar by kayak. The expedition lasted 11 months, a feat he achieved alone and unaided. The incredible 5000km journey, 5000 km, was demanding, both physically and mentally. Not only did Riaan have to overcome severe loneliness, but natural disasters, extreme weather conditions, and ten hours in saltwater wreaked havoc on his body. ... Four years after his solo trip, Riaan and his wife Vasti took on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean. They endured a 173-day expedition from Agadir, Morocco to New York City, USA. ... In 2018, Riaan was joined on his 7-metre rowing boat, by rowing rookie and a total stranger Fanafikile Lephakha for a 5500 km expedition from the Canary Islands to Barbados which would last nearly two months."

    5. Kilgannon, Corey (2014-06-21). "Adventurous Couple Arrive in New York From Africa, Merrily, Merrily". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-09. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

      The article notes: "Riaan Manser and Vasti Geldenhuys, a fun-loving couple from Cape Town, have been together for 14 years, so when Ms. Geldenhuys, 36, suggested a vacation, he was agreeable. ... Mr. Manser, 40, is a professional adventurer who, without Ms. Geldenhuys, a lawyer, has traveled the perimeter of Africa on a bicycle and around Madagascar and Iceland by kayak. So he suggested that the two row a boat from Africa to the United States, with no accompanying vessels. They completed that journey around 2 p.m. on Friday, rowing their custom-built, 22-foot, high-tech rowboat into the 79th Street Boat Basin almost six months after leaving Agadir, Morocco, on Dec. 30. After rowing almost 6,700 miles, they claim they are the first pair to row from mainland Africa to mainland North America."

    6. "Riaan Manser – Do something almost impossible". The Newspaper. 2023-06-05. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

      The article notes: "First, it was Riaan Manser, alone and unaided…cycling the entire perimeter of the African continent, then circumnavigating Madagascar in a kayak and similarly around Iceland in a double kayak, adding two more incredible world firsts to his name. He then met his adventure partner for life, Vasti. Together, they broke world records through their adventures; from a world-first ocean row – Africa to North America, and then earning another Guinness World Record during a subsequent ocean crossing – the fastest mid-Pacific row from California to Hawaii."

    7. Monakali, Namhla (2024-10-01). "Renowned adventurer Riaan Manser captivated primary school learners with thrilling tales from his travels". People's Post. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

      The article notse: "Manser, whose children’s book My First African Adventure, was awarded the overall winner of the SA Book Awards 2023, spoke to the Grade 3s to 6s about his remarkable adventures, including a journey cycling around the perimeter of Africa. ... After the talk Manser signed copies of his books, including My First Wild Island Adventure and My First African Adventure, for students and staff alike."

    8. de Lange, Phil (2023-05-16). "Riaan Manser's brush with death". Smile 90.4FM. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

      The article notes: "He’s known as the South African that has conquered the world’s toughest oceans and most hostile environments. But now Riaan Manser is about to take his whole family on an adventure. He told Ryan all about it this morning and also shared a story about one of his scariest adventures. First, it was Riaan Manser, alone and unaided…cycling the entire perimeter of the African continent. Then he circumnavigated Madagascar in a kayak and Iceland in a double kayak which added two more world firsts to his name."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Riaan Manser to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pirated movie release types

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Pirated movie release types (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST, largely original research and what sourced material does exist within the article is sourced to unreliable sources. Previous AfDs were just a WP:VOTE without actual policy debate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I also agree that it is very informative. This article provides encyclopaedic value by documenting terminology and release patterns that have been widely used and referenced in digital media communities for decades. While improvements in sourcing and structure may be needed, the topic itself is verifiably notable through its sustained use in torrenting platforms, piracy-related discussions, and tech journalism. Deletion appears to be motivated, at least in part, by ideological opposition to the subject matter rather than a neutral assessment of whether this information is citable and informative. Wikipedia’s purpose is to document what exists in the world—not to legitimise or condemn it.— SBWalkerP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
    I am not sure where in the nomination one would find "ideological opposition to the subject matter". If you are implying this is due to edits outside of the discussion, that is a WP:ADHOMINEM personal attack. You have also not provided sources as evidence for your claim it is notable. WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a viable argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s clearly an LLM-written vote ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This does need more policy-based input focusing on whether reliable sources exist for this content. WP:USEFUL comments are not helpful, and neither are suggestions to merge this already overlong article into another.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Third party sources, article is sourced. Looks decent. as stated above the article provides encyclopaedic value by documenting terminology.BabbaQ (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blast from the past, but what are the sources which treat these as a group? Just starting with the basics, I did a search for '"cam" "telesync" "screener" "dvdrip"' and found no reliable sources. Yes, each might be verifiable on its own, but we need WP:NLIST. It's challenging in that (a) most of this relates to online piracy culture, and few reliable sources treat that with the nerdy depth this list goes for, (b) this stuff was most popular 20 years ago, so there's a lot of link rot in play. It's certainly possible sources exist, but I'm not seeing them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure this should be an article of its own, but Online piracy is clearly full. Shockingly the page Movie piracy is a redirect so I suggest that an article is expanded at that link and then this is merged into that article. I think this content is worth keeping and Manwithbigiron has found some quality sources that can serve as a base. The current article name and contents need some cleaning up, its not 2007 wikipedia anymore. Moritoriko (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per Moritoriko. Should meet NList as pirated movies are clearly notable as a whole (with classifications discussed by Manwithbigiron's sources) though I agree that this seems like it'd be better off merged with a future Movie piracy article. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to note that keeping in the current state is not what I support. Moritoriko (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My !vote is for merging eventually. I would've made my bolded part "merge" after starting a basic Movie piracy article myself, but there's so little information on Wikipedia anywhere that I don't know where to start. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Okay, we have a clear consensus for "this doesn't belong here, but it probably belongs somewhere". Relisting for one more week in the hopes that this helps us figure out where that somewhere might be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

East German Republic Day Parade of 1988

[edit]
East German Republic Day Parade of 1988 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From my contested PROD: Unsourced and non-notable military parade in East Germany. Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in english or german. Fails WP:EVENT, unlike the 1989 parade, as there was no lasting effect and no significant impact. LightlySeared (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vitor Gava

[edit]
Vitor Gava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not show notability and a google search could not find any additional sources. Nixleovel (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Montague Road, Adelaide

[edit]
Montague Road, Adelaide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Insufficient sourcing with government map layers, google maps. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makoura Keita

[edit]
Makoura Keita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Only sources are database or results listings. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search