Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 14

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      May 19 (Mon)      May 18 (Sun)      May 17 (Sat)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

The National Baseball Association's top 100 minor league teams (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)

The list has no indepedent, reliable, or third party sources, and appears to fail WP:LISTN. I could not find anything online that was independent to establish that this should be a standalone list. Although everything is cited, it uses only primary sources. A possible merger target might be List of Minor League Baseball leagues and teams, but non-primary sources would be required. Flibirigit (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have not been able to identify any information about this list that is secondary commentary on the subject. Most independent sources (e.g. baseball reference) simply summarize when it was made and restate the list. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The best I could find was [[1]] but without more coverage this is probably a delete for me. Let'srun (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete... doesn't seem really that notable.. as it didnt get much independent coverage.. also the list is kinda dated now. Spanneraol (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Minor_League_Baseball#Top_100_teams. Don't see this as a notable list on its own. But in the main article I linked does have a section on it with a link. No need to create an article recreating what the link says. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly fails LISTN as the subject has no evidence of being notable, and I can't find any secondary sources on it. However, there may be interest in expanding Minor_League_Baseball#Top_100_teams into a paragraph rather than a single line. JacobTheRox (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is not notable per guidelines as it has not attracted sustained public interest at any time. I support deletion. Helikophis (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion of this page. Celica tom (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and honours received by Daisaku Ikeda (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)

Reason The page is essentially promotionnal. It consists in copy/pasting several similar lists that can be found online, for instance here and there.

Babylone444 (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE —Aaron Liu (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism, Lists, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The sources in the first paragraph describe his honors in aggregate, just like List of awards and honours received by Winston Churchill, and thus this meets WP:NLIST. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree this reads as promotional/in the style of a CV rather than an article of encyclopedic value. However, it does seem to technically pass WP:NLIST. I think maybe a discussion on the practice of separate awards list pages for individuals should be held in an appropriate forum. I would think it much more valuable to only list the most notable awards an individual has earned. Certainly huge lists that include honorary doctorates/professorships/citizenships etc. don't seem valuable considering something like an honorary degree is handed out for a 20 minute commencement speech. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Include he most notable, and with a link to the full page. But the effort to remove this altogether isnot meant as an improvement to Wikipedia, or even to the Daisaku Ikeda entry; it is an attack on the subject. As you can see, here, an editor has appealed to an anti0Ikeda sub Reddit for help, and in the comments Ikeda is referred to as "Icky", and they celebrate the idea of denigrating his reputation. Daveler16 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: He clearly has a lot of awards and these are given SIGCOV in both sources covering individual awards and the awards he has received as a whole. Because of this, I am concerned that this nom is a defamation attack against the subject and has no actual rationale. JacobTheRox (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boubout Dieng (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 provided sources are databases and results listings which are not sufficient to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing shows up on search, even for his name in Arabic. The article on the German wiki isn't any better.— Moriwen (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mauritania at the 1992 Summer Olympics where the person's name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mauritania at the 1992 Summer Olympics: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Redirect as a WP:ATD with no prejudice against recreation should significant coverage eventually be found. Let'srun (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no (additional) coverage in Arabic FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mauritania at the 1992 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mauritania at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Men because he fails WP:SPORTCRIT, but is mentioned on that page in that section. All other athletes wikilinked in that section seem to be somewhat more notable so he is an odd-one out. JacobTheRox (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosen Marinov (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)

Second-tier footballer with no significant coverage; one article which mentions his name in a single sentence, and one database entry. Nothing better turns up on search, either for his name in Bulgarian or the transliteration. — Moriwen (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. — Moriwen (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stony Creek, Indiana (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)

What shows on the topos is a long passing siding on a now abandoned Wabash line. But there's no name, and this was added from the state highway map which has been the source of a number of other spurious places. I don't doubt that there was a station here, but there's no sign there was any town. Searching tended to produce hit on the township or the watershed. Mangoe (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPLACE, no sign of a town. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Ekezie (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 entrepreneur's article was deleted after an AfD discussion in April 2023 (and this 2020 AfD discussion and this 2018 MfD discussion). It was nominated on the basis of lacking reliable/independent sources, but was re-published later that year. I don't see any improvement in available reliable sources on the article subject (e.g., sources published since the last deletion). The article for his company, Kippa, also seems lacking in sourcing and possibly doesn't meet WP:NCORP, so I'm not sure a merge/redirect would be too useful in this situation. Best, Bridget (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Bridget (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Finance, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JJW Hotels & Resorts (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)

Procedural nomination on behalf of User:Aona1212, who requested deletion at WT:AfD and the article talk page due to it being unsourced and promotional. Toadspike [Talk] 21:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Travel and tourism. Toadspike [Talk] 21:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is not sourced.Aona1212 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It is true that there are no independent reliable sources applied to this page. It's likely worse than that; the page (and the Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber bio associated) appear to have been created and farmed almost entirely by undisclosed paid editors. BusterD (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Passing mentions and routine announcements is all I can find in a quick search. Nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mohamed bin Issa Al Jaber (with the history preserved under the redirect), per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Ondeng (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)

No real coverage for this biography. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Promo.UPE. scope_creep^Talk 21:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the nomination, but also per WP:GNG, I don't see what he's actually accomplished. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - promotional UPE article which does not pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Young Freemen (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)

Subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (per WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRITE). Current citations are almost entirely routine or minor mentions, many of them in publications by related institutions. Paul W (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment – Keep

  I oppose deletion. The Guild of Young Freemen article meets both the General Notability Guideline (GNG) and WP:ORGCRITE for organizational notability.

  1. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources

  The Guild has been featured in respected publications beyond trivial mention, including:

  Financial Times, referring to it as a “popular association” among City Freemen.

  The Times, which has photographed and referenced Guild members during livery events.

  BBC, which includes the Guild in Lord Mayor’s Show coverage.

  City Matters, the City of London’s newspaper of record, with multiple pieces highlighting the Guild’s involvement in civic life (Sheep Drive, Pancake Race, inter-livery charity work).

  The Field magazine — one of the oldest hobby and sporting publications in the UK — has mentioned the Guild alongside other historic Livery Companies in its coverage of City traditions.

  2. Public civic role

  The Guild plays a formal part in the annual Lord Mayor’s Show, where its members escort the traditional figures of Gog and Magog. It was founded in 1976 by the City of London Corporation to engage younger Freemen. Recently, it entered a long-term partnership with the St John Eye Hospital Group, reflecting its charitable mission and continuing relevance.

  3. Notable alumni and impact

  The Guild has served as a launchpad for individuals who have gone on to serve the City, such as:

  William Hunt, founding member and later Windsor Herald of Arms.

  Alastair King, current Alderman and Lord Mayor of London (2024–25), who serves as the Guild’s patron.

  Several Common Councilmen and civic figures who identify as alumni or close affiliates.

  The Guild also works with livery companies on public events and charitable activities, reinforcing its embedded role in City life.

  4. On par with comparable articles

  There are other Wikipedia articles on City institutions like the City Livery Club and Guild of Freemen, some of which have less sourcing or less civic visibility. The Guild of Young Freemen is no less notable than these examples. Deletion would be inconsistent with how other comparable pages are treated.

  5. Good-faith editing and room for improvement

  The article was drafted by me (under the username ReclaimEC1) as part of a journalistic initiative to improve coverage of overlooked but historically relevant civic bodies in the City of London. I acknowledge there may be tone issues, but these can easily be corrected through collaborative editing. I intend to expand documentation on other underrepresented Livery Companies and Common Councillors across Wikipedia.

  Conclusion

  The Guild of Young Freemen is notable, historically rooted, publicly active, and covered by multiple independent, high-quality sources. It deserves to remain on Wikipedia. Improvements should be made through editing—not deletion. ReclaimEC1 (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources", please cite them.

1. I did a Google search for news items, and found nothing significant.
2. The BBC Lord Mayor's Show coverage is passing mentions. It does not focus on the Guild. Participation in a big event does not make the Guild notable
3. The 'launchpad' argument is spurious - per WP:INHERIT.
4. 'Comparable articles' argument is irrelevant and unconvincing - per WP:OTHERSTUFF.
5. Sorry, but WP:HARDWORK is no reason to retain a subject that fails GNG.

I note a draft article on the same subject also exists - Draft:Guild of Young Freemen - maybe focus on improving that to the point that it is acceptable.

I also note your intention "to expand documentation on other underrepresented Livery Companies and Common Councillors". This would be welcomed, so long as the subjects meet GNG, ORGCRITE and NPOL - several of the recently created Common Councillor articles do not meet the latter criteria and have been nominated for deletion.

Paul W (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Paul W, for your thoughtful engagement. I appreciate the scrutiny, and I agree we should hold all content to GNG and related standards.

Re: your question on significant coverage — here are some independent, reliable sources that reference the Guild of Young Freemen in more than a passing way:

The Times (18 May 2015): Announcement of the appointment of a new Master of the Guild. This was printed in the announcements section — a public record of officer appointments in civic institutions.

BBC: While BBC coverage of the Lord Mayor’s Show often highlights the overall event, the Guild appears in broadcast footage as escorts of Gog and Magog (e.g. BBC London News, 13 Nov 2021). Though mentioned briefly, the Guild’s official role is confirmed independently on the Lord Mayor’s Show website, which states:

“The giant willow figures… are escorted by the Guild of Young Freemen, founded by the Corporation to encourage participation of young Liverymen in the affairs and traditions of the City.”

The Feltmaker (Worshipful Company of Feltmakers): A 2022 issue notes the Guild led participants across London Bridge during the Sheep Drive, confirming their ceremonial role beyond internal mentions.

Range Magazine (15 May 2025): The latest issue includes a feature on the Guild, discussing its history, civic involvement, and charitable work, including partnerships with Livery Companies and the St John Eye Hospital Group.

These references collectively meet GNG by showing significant, independent, and non-trivial coverage. They demonstrate the Guild’s consistent involvement in high-profile civic traditions and charity, backed by third-party sources.

As for the draft — yes, I only noticed it afterward. But since the live page already exists (not created by me), it makes sense to improve it rather than duplicate work. I’m happy to help merge, edit, or polish content as needed.

Lastly, thank you again for taking an interest. I genuinely hope you’ll consider helping improve these articles with me rather than proposing deletions — we’re all here to expand access to accurate, verifiable information, especially about historic institutions that are often overlooked. Constructive collaboration always makes the project stronger.

Referenced Links

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/archive/article/2015-05-18/12/0.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-59266028

https://lordmayorsshow.london/2023/procession

https://www.feltmakers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Feltmaker-2022.pdf

Range Magazine (15 May 2025 – print only; article available upon request or via City libraries) ReclaimEC1 (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot comment in detail on the Times mention (paywalled) or Range Magazine (though both sound to be the result of Guild PR/marketing, which may render the coverage unreliable). The Lord Mayor's Show mention is not really independent (there is a clear connection between the Show and the Guild). The Feltmakers link is broken, but I intuited it might be the 2022 magazine - there is a passing mention (but not significant coverage). If you see fit, please edit the article (there may be additional sources in the Draft article) so that other editors can take a view. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you interesting conversation, I appreciate the help and tips and have begun making changes. I thank all who are working on this together. Miceofbankstation (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (yet I will cycle back to see if better sources have been found). I have not found any independent sources that are substantially about this guild. Most of the sources here are announcements of events that merely name the guild but say nothing about it. That is not sufficient for notability. I'm not sure how to assess the sources from other guilds, but none are substantial (mainly name-checks or single sentences) so it doesn't really matter. A few of the sources here do not mention the guild at all -- such as the St John one. I did searches in The Guardian but found no mention, in spite of a (dead) link here. Lamona (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tregaron Conservancy (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)

There's a little weak sourcing, e.g. [2][3], but no great need for a separate article when this is covered in Tregaron Estate#History. A redirect there is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. WP:PAGEDECIDE applies here. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 22:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge new information into Tregaron Estate. I do not think a separate article is warranted, given with the overlap of this topic and its parent topic of the estate. Also, much of this article is a history of the estate it seems. I think a #conservancy section in the Estate article is warranted, along with merging the new information added here into the #history section of that same article. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Tregaron Estate is described as a "country house and estate," but the two the two were split with very practical consequences. It used to be one unified residence, now the land contains a school and a legally distinct park. Indeed, this bifurcation is noted in the introductory paragraph to the article on the estate ("Today the estate is occupied by a campus of the Washington International School and the Tregaron Conservancy.")

  Tregaron Estate was originally part of Twin Oaks, but it would be inappropriate to merge because after the property was partitioned, the new parcel gained a new owner who put it to a new use. The same is true here where Tregaron Estate was partitioned into the buildings of the Washington International School and the parkland of the Conservancy.

  This bifurcation has been similarly used where an estate with historical significance (Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial) is treated separately than undeveloped space severed from the estate for a new purpose (Arlington National Cemetery), other examples include (Stoneleigh Park partitioned from Stoneleigh Abbey), (Knowsley Safari Park partitioned from Knowsley Hall), (Moor Park Golf Club distinct from Moor Park (house)), (Tredegar House Country Park distinct from Tredegar House).

  Conversely, one article is appropriate where the buildings and grounds were never split and remain under joint use for one purpose (an apt example is Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens the estate Post bought after moving out of Tregaron when she and Davies split).

  As a practical matter, it's important to distinguish the conservancy, which is a park open to the public, from the estate as a whole which includes substantial areas of private property owned by the Washington International School to which visitors are expressly not welcome.

  The articles should remain distinct because Tregaron's story since 1980 has been one of bifurcation for distinct uses by different owners. 98.204.119.0 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm developing material on the post Davies era of Tregaron, covering the contentious inheritance and sale, development efforts, community response, and eventual protection. Please delay deletion. 98.204.119.0 (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the recent edits make the case, though I need to clean them up since I wanted to get something up here quickly. 98.204.119.0 (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While once a portion of the estate, the parcel has been a separate entity (the other a part of the school which has it's own article), since 1980. The history section conveys how the conservancy came to be. Sourcing is satisfactory.Djflem (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The conservancy is distinct from the estate or school. The history section is now more robust than the estate article, but specifically relates to the conservancy, not the school or estate. The sourcing is now substantially better than the estate article, which has merely one source, a National Register of Historic Places document that predates the conservancy. Randomnumbername (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Gadhia (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:MUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV. No standalone notability outside band. scope_creep^Talk 20:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other reasons why my article was nominated for deletion? How can I make it better? Emmoluch (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Absolutely fails WP:MUSICBIO. Charlie (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - we've frequently redirected articles about band members to the band's article. Bearian (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Callao FC (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)

Per WP:NTEAM, a sports team's notability is assessed under WP:GNG, which this subject does not meet. Among the three current citations, two are merely to the team's stats. The Ovacion article is solely interview statements from players hoping the team succeeds, rather than substantive commentary on the team's history. If uncited portions of the body are believed, this year the team was promoted to the newly created Peruvian Tercera División, the third level of the Peruvian football league system, in a rapid ascent from its 2022 founding at the bottom level. This ESPN article confirms the team's participation in the Peruvian Tercera División but lacks significant coverage on the team to establish notability. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – As WP:ATD. It is common in Peruvian football for new teams to emerge due to the league system, more sources may be added in the medium term. Svartner (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Peruvian Tercera División as possible search term. GiantSnowman 18:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Works with me as long as we adjust the target as the team is promoted/relegated to other tiers of the Peruvian football league system over time, at least until coverage of the team becomes significant enough to support an independent article. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Short break (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)

I have been looking for sources to designate and identify this phrase as a standalone encyclopedic subject, and I'm not finding anything. Any subject this phrase could refer to is mentioned at Break, but the inclusion of the word "short" in the title disqualifies this title from being redirected there per WP:PTM. Also, Wiktionary:short break exists. Either way, as an encyclopedic subject, there seems to be a lack of information to define it in such a notable fashion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 1#Short break for how this article ended up being restored after its 18-year-old WP:BLAR. Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: agree with nom - vague term - could mean any break... Asteramellus (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:NOTESSAY. This was a new editor's first and last effort at creating an article. — Maile (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTADICTIONARY jolielover♥talk 15:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Edgar, David A. (2003). "Strategies for Optimising Revenues from Short Breaks: Lessons from the Scottish hotel markets". In Laws, Eric; Faulkner, Bill; Moscardo, Gianna (eds.). Embracing and Managing Change in Tourism: International Case Studies. London: Routledge. p. 385. ISBN 978-1-134-72167-2. Retrieved 2025-05-16 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "Despite the fact that the short break phenomenon is not new, and not restricted to the UK (Loverseed 1992, Cockerell 1989, Potier and Cockerell 1992), there is still no standardised definition for short break, short holiday, short holiday break, short break holiday or bargain break. A short break is essentially characterised by the duration of stay (Lohmann 1991), and the form of accommodation used (BTA 1989). Since the 1940s short holidays have been described as 'trips of up to three nights away from home, primarily for holiday purposes' (Beioley 1991). While this duration of stay is the most commonly accepted for defining short break holidays (BTA 1989, UKTS 1991, Law 1990, 1991, Beioley 1991, Bailey 1989, Davies 1990), a more current stream of thinking is that short breaks are actually characterised by a duration of stay of one to four or five nights (Schidhauser 1992, MEW Research 1994)."

  2. Pike, Steven (2021). Destination Marketing: Essentials (3 ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-367-46953-5. Retrieved 2025-05-16 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "One of the best market segment opportunities for repeat visitation and relationship marketing is short break holidays. The term short break is firmly entrenched in the travel industry vernacular and has regularly been the topic of articles in trade publications and in the popular press. In the tourism literature, Fache (1990, p. 5) referred to short breaks as a "new form of recreation". . Short breaks emerged relatively recently as a significant holiday trend in Europe (Euromonitor, 1987; Fache, 1990), Australasia (Pike, 2002, 2007), North America (Plog, 2000), and the UK (see, for example, Edgar, 1997; Edgar et al., 1994). Domestic weekend-break packages, by UK hotels, was one of a range of initiatives to counter static domestic and international visitor growth during the late 1970s. By the 1990s commercial short breaks in the UK had evolved from an off-season contribution towards fixed costs, to an all-year growth market (Edgar et al., 1994)."

  3. Sharma, R. D. (2011). "The short-break holiday: assessing its understanding in the Northern Territory, Australia". In Brebbia, Carlos (ed.). The Sustainable World. Vol. 1. Southampton: WIT Press. pp. 771–778. doi:10.2495/SW100691. ISBN 978-1-84564-504-5. ISSN 1743-3541. Retrieved 2025-05-16 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "‘Short break’ has emerged as a significant holiday activity in various global market segments. In Australia ‘destination marketing organisations’ (DMO) aggressively promote key destinations for short break holidays. Many industry stakeholders including accommodation and transport providers have used short break holidays in their promotional campaigns. Murphy et al. [1] argue that ‘short-break holidays’ are an expanding global phenomenon, attributed to more complex and stressful lifestyles within affluent societies. It is pertinent to note that most short-break holidays are undertaken in addition to the traditional annual family holiday. This therefore represents additional demand and opportunities for new tourism products. Short break holidays are motivated by consumers’ desire to get away for a few days, away from home in a nearby regional or national destination for relaxation and fun." Striking as this is not a reliable source. Cunard (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  4. Packer, Jan (May 2021). "Taking a break: Exploring the restorative benefits of short breaks and vacations". Annals of Tourism Research Empirical. 2 (1). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/j.annale.2020.100006.

     The abstract notes: "This paper applies Attention Restoration Theory to explore the restorative benefits of short breaks and vacations among Australian university staff (N = 156). Three groups (Vacation, Short Break and No Break) were compared using both objective (physiological and cognitive) and subjective (self-report) measures. ... Short breaks have an advantage over longer vacations on some measures, and this may be explained by attributes of the environment and activities in which vacationers engaged."

     The article notes: "The restorative benefits of short breaks (defined as 3–4 days away from home and work) and vacations (defined as 1–5 weeks away from home and work) were investigated using a causal-comparative research design to compare the effects of three conditions (taking a vacation; taking a short break; and taking no break) on measures of restorative outcomes (i.e. changes over time in physiological, cognitive and self-report measures)."

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

  Cunard (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I rewrote the article and added sources. Based on the significant research into short breaks, there likely is enough content to support a standalone article. However, I am not opposed to a merge to another article like Vacation if that is not deemed to be undue weight. Cunard (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cunard: Thank you for you in-depth analysis on this phrase. I know your impact is great here on Wikipedia, so I appreciate it and will continue to do so. However...

  ...The references used in this way to validate the term "short break" being encyclopedic seems to have potential WP:SYNTH issues and/or partial title matches for subjects we already have articles for on Wikipedia; the phrase seems to have inadequate encyclopedia value as a phrase other than to have its first word be used as an adjective to describe other topics we already have, such as Vacation, Holiday, Break (work), etc. In other words, my de facto "delete" vote still stands. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for you in-depth analysis on this phrase. I know your impact is great here on Wikipedia, so I appreciate it and will continue to do so. – thank you for the kind words. I appreciate it.

  The references used in this way to validate the term "short break" being encyclopedic seems to have potential WP:SYNTH issues – I don't see any WP:SYNTH issues. The sources I've provided define a "short break" as taking a trip of a few days' duration for leisure purposes. A violation of WP:SYNTH happens when an article "combine[s] material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"? Does the current version of the short break article violate WP:SYNTH? I rewrote the previously unsourced article to incorporate the sources I listed here.

  and/or partial title matches for subjects we already have articles for on Wikipedia – regarding "partial title matches", that is a policy-based reason to support deletion of a disambiguation page under Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches but not a policy-based reason for supporting deletion of an encyclopedia article.

  the phrase seems to have inadequate encyclopedia value as a phrase other than to have its first word be used as an adjective to describe other topics we already have, such as Vacation, Holiday, Break (work), etc. – the concept of "short break" with the definition of "taking a trip of a few days' duration for leisure purposes" has been the subject of numerous academic studies (Edgar 2003 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFEdgar2003 (help)) and has been discussed by the popular press and trade publications (Pike 2021 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPike2021 (help)). Under Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, this means that the subject does have encyclopedic value. The articles about the topics you listed are about distinct topics from the definition of "short break" sources are using:

  1. Holiday is defined as "a day or other period of time set aside for festivals or recreation". The article then lists public holidays, secular holidays, religious holidays, and unofficial holidays. This is a different topic from "short break".
  2. Break (work) is defined as "a period of time during a shift in which an employee is allowed to take time off from their job". This is different from "short break", which is taken outside of a working shift.
  3. Vacation is defined as "a leave of absence from a regular job or school or an instance of leisure travel away from home". It cites examples like staycation, sabbatical, gap year, and career break. Vacation is the article that is most closely related to a short break. A short break is a vacation where a person takes a trip for a few days .

  Based on the extensive academic research on the "short break" phenomenon, I don't think short break should be a red link. I think there is enough material to support a standalone article but a merge to vacation is a potential approach too. Cunard (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 1#Short break participants: Steel1943 (talk · contribs), Servite et contribuere (talk · contribs), Thryduulf (talk · contribs), Tavix (talk · contribs), Sergecross73 (talk · contribs), and Someone-123-321 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here are more academic sources about the term "short break". For each source, I've bolded the text of how the sources define "short break" to show how they define it as "a trip of a few days' duration for leisure purposes":
  1. Huybers, Twan (December 2003). "Modelling Short-Break Holiday Destination Choices". Tourism Economics. 9 (4). Sage Publishing: 389–405. doi:10.5367/000000003322662989.

     The article notes: "This paper reports the results of an application of choice modelling to short-break destination choices by prospective tourists from Sydney, Australia. Short breaks are defined as trips of two or three nights’ duration undertaken for holiday or leisure purposes. ... As Australia’s largest city, Sydney provides a large target market for short-break destinations. Sixty-five percent of all Sydney short-break tourists choose the surrounding New South Wales regions or Canberra as their destination (National Visitor Survey, 1999). These regions have a particular interest in the short-break holiday preferences of Sydney residents."

  2. Wang, Di; Kotsi, Filareti; Mathmann, Frank; Yao, Jun; Pike, Steven (2022-05-26). "Short break drive holiday destination attractiveness during COVID-19 border closures". Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. 51: 568–577. doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.05.013.

     The article notes: "A short break holiday is defined as a stay away from home between one and four nights (White, 2000). In this ongoing project, several surveys of consumers in Auckland and Brisbane since 2000 have consistently confirmed this. As suggested in the introduction, domestic tourism has taken on increased importance for tourism stakeholders in many parts of the world during the 2020 COVID-19 global pandemic, and yet only 10 out of 418 destination image publications (2.4%) considered short break holidays. For instance, Davison and Riley (2010) investigated short break preferences of low-cost airline users in the East Midlands. However, our literature search did not identify any previous studies that attempted to the determinant attributes of short break holiday destination attractiveness or any that attempted to segment the market."

  3. Hamann, Antonieta; Hernani-Merino, Martin; Tarazona Vargas, Enver Gerald (2022-12-30). "Perspectives on short break destinations and their contribution to local-regional economic development: a literature review". Revista Interamericana de Ambiente y Turismo [Interamerican Journal of Environment and Tourism]. 18 (2). ESAN University: 207–221. hdl:20.500.12640/3324.

     The article notes: "In the current tourism context, evidence suggests a progressive reduction in the length of stay at tourist destinations (Alegre & Pou, 2006; Moll-de-Alba, Pratts, & Coromina, 2017; Williams & Shaw, 2009), and, based on this, the concepts of “short break” and “city break” are used for short trips. Authors like Davis (1990); Murphy, Niininen & Sanders (2010); Sharma (2010); Dunne, Flanagan & Buckley (2007); and Moll-de-Alba et al. (2017) indicate that a consensus has not been reached regarding the definition of short breaks or of city breaks; current definitions place these two types of trips within a range of stays varying from 1 to 6 nights. This difference in definitions presents difficulties for strategically planning the development of these destinations. Murphy et al. (2010) and Enne & Schofield (2011) mention that short breaks have become increasingly and significantly more common in recent years, and it is hoped that this trend will continue inasmuch as people select this type of vacation to closer destinations, in part because tourists will probably spend proportionally more on this market segment than on other tourism products (Schmidhauser, 1992). However, few studies have been carried out regarding the length of these trips (Tsiotsou & Vasioti, 2006; Yang & Zhang, 2015)."

  4. Pike, Steven (February 2003). "The Use of Repertory Grid Analysis to Elicit Salient Short-Break Holiday Destination Attributes in New Zealand" (PDF). Journal of Travel Research. 41 (3): 315–319. doi:10.1177/0047287502239054.

     The article notes: "Few destination image studies have focused on short breaks to date. For this study, a short break has been defined as a nonbusiness trip of between one and three nights."

  5. Moll-de-Alba, Jorge; Prats, Lluís; Coromina, Lluís (2016). "Differences between short and long break tourists in urban destinations: the case of Barcelona". European Journal of Tourism Research. 14. Varna University of Management [bg]: 29–46. doi:10.54055/ejtr.v14i.241. ISSN 1994-7658. Retrieved 2025-05-16 – via Google Books.

     The article notes: "This article focuses on short duration travellers (short breakers) and those of long duration (long breakers). In general, short breaks are recognised as a differentiated type of trip. The most widely accepted definition, also used in this article, considers a short break to be a stay between 2 and 4 nights with a non-professional motivation (Murphy, Niininen & Sanders, 2010). Despite the importance of the length of stay, usually practitioners use short breaks even there being a lack of agreement concerning what a short break is. Nevertheless, a certain amount of research into the short break, such as for example the previous study, has been carried out. Meanwhile, the long break has not been specifically studied as an aspect of city tourism. Therefore, the main contribution of this paper is to explain the differences between the between the two levels of tourist length of stay, an approach that has not been adopted before now."

  6. Murphy, Peter (2014-02-28). "Potential Synergies for the Short-Break Holiday and Rural Tourism Markets: Evidence from a National Australian Survey". Tourism Planning & Development. 11 (3). Taylor & Francis: 261–274. doi:10.1080/21568316.2014.889520.

     The article notes: "A review of the literature reveals the present commercial short-break holiday format developed in Europe during the 1970s and 1980s (Law, 2002; Teare, Davies, & McGeary, 1989). In the first instance they were promoted by business hotels in major cities which had underused room capacity during the weekends, when the business people had returned home. ... There is no common agreement on how to define a short-break holiday. Not surprisingly with a new research area, Tsiotsou and Vasioti (2006, p. 65) claim “short-term visitors have not been studied adequately in (the) travel and tourism literature” and this has led to a variety of descriptors (Boerjan, 1995; Davies, 1990). The lack of a universal definition is compounded by whether the topic is viewed from a demand or supply perspective. Most references take a consumer demand perspective, defining short-break holidays as being one to six nights with a motivational emphasis on a “short break from normal routine”. In contrast holidays of a week or more are viewed as long or traditional holidays and have a greater “rest and relaxation” atmosphere along with a slower pace. The supply-side of the tourism business has a tighter definition of one to four nights, according to the findings of a recent Australian study (Murphy, Niininen, & Sanders, 2010); but many are not sure where the short-break holiday-makers fit in, since they are viewed as being different from “overnight” or “in-transit” visitors, and nor do they behave like traditional long holiday visitors."

  7. Edgar, David A.; Litteljohn, David L.; Allardyce, Myrtle L. (1994). "Strategic Clusters and Strategic Space: The Case of the Short Break Market". International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 6 (5). Emerald Group Publishing: 20–26. doi:10.1108/09596119410065923. ISSN 0959-6119.

     The article notes: "A literature review revealed little systematic study on the subjects of short breaks or strategic clusters. Most coverage was in the form of trade press articles, specialist journals, conference papers, government publications, and industrial research documents. A computerized database was therefore constructed from primary and secondary data drawn from company and market specific sources, containing the 30 largest hotel companies (by room stock, 1991) operating in Scotland. This allowed cross comparisons to be made of companies, regions, performance, and short break segments."

     The article notes: "As the research concentrates on commercially centred activities, short breaks are defined as “hotel packages of one to three nights, which for a single price together with accommodation include one or more of the following: meals; transport; entertainment; or a programme of activities”. This definition allows for the use of secondary sources for structural analysis, and primary sources for detail of supply and strategic clusters."

  Cunard (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Cundard's sources clearly show there is an encyclopaedic concept here. The article needs a lot of work, but that's not a reason for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cunard has clearly demonstrated that there is significant coverage of this topic. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonaut 4 (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:BAND, was unable to find any form of significant for inclusion. They also seem to have been nominated and deleted previously, and judging from the nomination that time, there doesnt seem to much of an improvement this time around. No charting album, not on a notable label, no inclusion in any big publication. In fact most of their 'press' seems to just come from underground metal online tabloids like Metal Injection and MetalSucks, like many others of this bands size. Searching their name just brings up the usual for underground metal acts such as LastFM or Sputnikmusic mostly. Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 05:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is plenty of coverage. Not everything, especially for bands from smaller countries will be instantly on the front of major news outlets, which does not discredit their notability. The majority of the coverage on them has been published since the first deletion as well. Seacactus 13 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so you edited the page since the delete nomination with this edit with the summary "Maybe actually look past page 1 of Google search results". What am I missing here? Obscure webzines/blogs in Italian and Danish? That's the big comeback with verifiable sources? User-created blogs and webzines are generally not reliable sources. You claim "There is plenty of coverage. Not everything, especially for bands from smaller countries will be instantly on the front of major news outlets, which does not discredit their notability", which is fine when it comes to small metal bands due to their appearances on verifiable publications like Revolver or Kerrang etc. yet I still dont see any noteworthy sources like those. All that's mostly used on the article are metal webzines, which anyone can create and maintain - and are generally disallowed per wp:USERG — Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 06:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The page has three+ sources with SIGCOV. One of them (metal.de) is for sure reliable per wp:A/S. The rest doesn't raise any apparent problems. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not seeing significant coverage of this group. Does not meet WP:BAND. Seeing that it was deleted in the last AFD, it does not look like it improved much this second time in terms of notability. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Metal.de and the Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa focus on the article subject in depth and therefore both sources fulfill criteria 1 of WP:BAND: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries. The nominator has described these sources as self-published "blogs", but that is simply not accurate. Both sources are online independent news publishers, with an editor in chief and staff writers, etc, as opposed to blogs written by a single author - under WP:BAND, what constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 20:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Schmidt (footballer) (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)

Footballer from the reserve team for a second-tier club. Absolutely no significant independent coverage, just posts from his own team and database entries. — Moriwen (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. — Moriwen (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I support draftify. Was created prematurely. Geschichte (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 18:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Before this footballer has only played in reserve teams so far, I don't see it as a potential draft. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Check again - he has not only played in reserve teams so far. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Zalazar (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)

Second-tier footballer failing WP:BIO. All independent coverage is database entries; there's a few proper articles out there but they're all published by his club, so not independent. — Moriwen (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Spain. — Moriwen (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 18:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Kraemer (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)

While the band this individual is a member of is notable, the individual is not notable themselves outside of the band at this present time. All current information in the article is, or can be, covered in the band article. Andise1 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Vial (band). Bearian (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:BANDMEMBER. Rift (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Szabo (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 serial entrepreneur. It is an AI-generated article, most of the links are not working. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:TNT - it's been one long hallucination. Bearian (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although I may have missed something because my German is basically limited to just the universal icons on the web pages. I did look at some of the pages and none were independent or significant. This is one of the pages that fail from the links in the article. It is about a company he founded/worked in (?) but it's about the product, not him. He did write a book that is one of a series of 6 books, but it doesn't appear to be a bestseller. Lamona (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Najafi (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)

Second-tier footballer who fails WP:BIO. All citations on page are database entries; search is a little tricky due to news articles about several murderers with the same name, and it's possible I missed something in Iranian, but I note the lack of any article on the Iranian wiki. — Moriwen (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iran. — Moriwen (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 18:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafify per GiantSnowman Robertjamal12 ~🔔 11:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bresser (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)

Does not meet WP:BIO. Unable to find significant independent coverage, although his club (PSV) has some press releases; other than that, it's just database entries. — Moriwen (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. — Moriwen (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft Not sure why it wasn't sent to draft space in the first place. Could easily be notable in the future. Govvy (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's more than 90 days old and therefore ineligible, alas.— Moriwen (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 18:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since presently notable. There is a huge distance between the intro and the facts on the ground. SIGCOV sources: ESPN article by Daan Sutorius and AD article by Rik Elfrink. These are multiple sources that support notability. Other items that fall short of standalone SIGCOV yet can cumulatively contribute to such (i.e. do not analyze individually!): [14][15][16][17][18][19]. Among these are additional articles by the sports journalist Rik Elfrink. gidonb (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized game theory (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 concept doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, since most of the articles that talk about this concept are from the authors themselves. The current sentence in the lead "The theory was developed by Tom R. Burns, Anna Gomolinska, and Ewa Roszkowska but has not had great influence beyond these immediate associates" is especially problematic for a Wikipedi article.

However, the article has a lot of content and has been around since 2008, so it could benefit from a deeper look from the community to validate this 7804j (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Mathematics. 7804j (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Will proceed to merge as proposed by another contributor 7804j (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I wrote this page after AfDs for two other pages on work related to Burns. While the concept is primarily used in the work of Burns and his research group, it is used in multiple peer reviewed articles and represents a significant part of the research agenda of that group. The theory remains in use within that group (and even if it didn't, I'd still !vote wk). Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Since the concept seems to be almost exclusively tied to the originating author, the article contents should be merged to Tom R. Burns, who does have a wikipedia page. The concept on its own does not merit the page existence, as per nomination. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's a good idea, so I'll withdraw my nomination and proceed with the merge 7804j (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Murray and The Invisible Girls (album) (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 album with no WP:RS or other coverage in the press or other media. DankPedia (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. DankPedia (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Pauline Murray. Ping me if someone finds something that establishes independent notability. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pauline Murray. I couldn't find any better sources. SirPenguin25 (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of communes of Luxembourg by population (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 page, together with List of communes of Luxembourg by area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and List of communes of Luxembourg by population density (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), serve absolutely no purpose, as they list information that is already compiled on List of communes of Luxembourg. Someone close to 20 years ago decided to create a separate list for each of these features, and it means unnecessary extra work has to be put in when, for instance, updating population statistics. Procrastineur49 (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Luxembourg. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Dude, just merge the images and redirect them. You don't have to start a discussion for something obvious like this unless someone objects. No need to delete the pages altogether either. Withdraw this and then follow WP:BOLD and WP:MERGEINIT. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heck, I'd merge the main list into Communes of Luxembourg too. But please do update the stats. Reywas92^Talk 19:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, should have been a merge request, not an AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 19:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless I'm missing something, the rush to admonishment of this nominator for bringing this to AfD seems unfair. This does not pass WP:NLIST and there is no sense in merging the article into List of communes of Luxembourg because it is literally duplicitous and already covered. Sure, this probably could have been done without an AfD nom, but if editors have any doubt at all about performing a WP:BOLD delete/redirect, we absolutely should create a culture as a community which encourages them to instead come to AfD for consensus. I don't think the nominator did anything wrong. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 20:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, my understanding is that the only way for non-admins to delete a page is to nominate it for deletion... Also, the thought of turning the pages into redirects had not crossed my mind. I supose I'll just do that. Procrastineur49 (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect these lists to List of communes of Luxembourg. These lists do meet WP:NLIST but they're redundant. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately, the nominator took action and changed this article to a Redirect despite they're being involved and this discussion still being open. I reverted that action and ask that no further action be taken until this AFD is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect, ok either way. Really don’t see what’s terrible in having these, but if comparison can be made elsewhere, so be it. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third Republic of Vietnam (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)

Delete or merge to the article of its leader, Dao Minh Quan. Article topic fails WP:ORG, as all the reliable secondary sources provided only mention the government-in-exile in passing as an affiliation of opposition figures who were arrested. None of the content about the group itself is cited (i.e. its institutions, activities, organisation, etc.), and I was unable to find reliable coverage for it online or in local print. Yue🌙 19:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Vietnam, and United States of America. Yue🌙 19:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Model International (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:GNG. WP:BEFORE found some media about individual contestants like Inquirer (Philippines) but nothing substantial about the pageant itself. Existing sources are entirely fansites like fernandomachado.blog.br, "Misterology", "The Great Pageant Community", and "Indian and World Pageant" (defunct Wordpress blog, see author's "about me" page); and a non-independent brochure which is found at Internet Archive. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James St John Davis (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)

No indication of notability for this local politician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL until better sourcing is found. JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable enough for a politician. The article also appears to be generated by AI. Leonstojka (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Our next generation is absolutely, positively cooked. But hey, billionaires will be making money hand-over-fist once the "first-hit-is-free" era of AI chatbots is over. JTtheOG (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, could not find any indication of sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 20:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and fails WP:NPOL. Paul W (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - zero evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hodgson (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)

WP:BLP of accountant and politician, but does not have presumed notability as the Court of Common Council of the City of London Corporation is below state/province level in the UK (generally interpreted as the devolved legislatures or above). Fails WP:GNG as no secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV could be found on internet; cited sources are mostly legal/financial/promotional documents, most of which make no more than passing references of the subject. Liu1126 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Politicians. Liu1126 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, and also fails WP:NPOL. Paul W (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Jude Tanner (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)

Doesn't meet GNG. Indication of importance is described as winning a Tony award, among others. This person did not win a Tony award -- their company was one of about 50 companies listed as having a co-producer credit for a production which won a Tony award. TonySt (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. TonySt (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casco Histórico de Vicálvaro (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)

Does not satisfy WP:N and WP:RS DankPedia (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. DankPedia (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GEOLAND.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND itself says that it is not guaranteed notability, and geographic features with limited or no WP:RS do not meet the WP:GNG DankPedia (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet GEOLAND still creates a case for notability suggesting that drive-by deletion requests may require to put a little more work on the deletion side of discussion...--Asqueladd (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should review WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXISTS. If you are going to argue that every topic-specific notability criteria is ignored (as you seem to be repeatedly doing), you should be putting way more work in assessing existing sources. As Asqueladd put it, drive-by nominations won't cut it. MarioGom (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per existing refs. Furthermore, a quick WP:BEFORE check of Wikipedia articles in other languages would have turned up more refs. Per WP:GEOLAND, the neighborhood is officially recognized by the City government. Clearly notable! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Spanish article notes the official population was 35,519 in 2023. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The existing references and the additional source identified by A.B. are sufficient to pass WP:GEOLAND and GNG. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 20:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. It is a legally recognized neighborhood [20]. There's also coverage in the press like [21]. Additional data about various demographic and economic aspects is available in reliable sources, both in book and paper form from a cursory look at Google Books and Scholar. MarioGom (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Pollard (British politician) (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)

WP:BLP of a politician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he serves as a local authority councillor in the City of London Corporation -- but that's the Square Mile, not London in its sprawling entirety, so he isn't entitled to the same automatic presumption of notability that a member of the London Assembly would get, and would have to show really solid WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to establish passage of NPOL #2.
But five of the six footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the only one that does come from a GNG-worthy source just briefly namechecks his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something other than himself, so it can't singlehandedly get him over the bar all by itself if it's the article's only reliable source.
As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody more knowledgeable about British local politics than I am can find solidly reliable sourcing to improve it with, but he isn't automatically entitled to an article just for existing as a local authority councillor, and primary sourcing doesn't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Agree with you about the subject not being entitled to an article as a member of the Court of Common Council. The only people who would have probably got something else that allows them to pass WP:GNG; City of London politicians with articles are generally those who have ascended to being Lord Mayor. In conjunction with the recent articles on Stephen Hodgson, Jaspreet Hodgson, James St John Davis et al, it seems a new editor has taken it upon themselves to give everyone at the Common Council a promo on here. Leonstojka (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree per nomination (I was going to AfD this article myself but I got diverted by a related article, Guild of Young Freemen). Paul W (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for Political advertising Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Müller (banking executive) (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)

On May 9, Asilvering PRODed this article because the reference links supporting coverage of a non-notable CEO clearly ended with ?utm_source=chatgpt.com URL slug. The following day, Leonstojka endorsed the PROD. After removing the PROD tag, an IP editor has simply rearranged the content and snipped off this tell-tale sign of LLM-generated text from some of the references. The added citations to Muller's Karlsruhe Institute of Technology teaching page and the BBBank website itself do not show significant coverage by independent, reliable sources to establish notability. The only significant coverage appears in the first source, but its hosting on Yumpu suggests that this is affiliated promotional material, though I would appreciate the insight of any German-speaking editors as to whether this is the case. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Finance. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the same reason as my prod. The first source is an interview with Transfer-Magazin (I believe this is their website, but I haven't done any investigation and this may be some other German-language magazine named Transfer: [22]) and is not secondary coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  transfer is the only German-language academic journal focused on communication and brand management. Published by the Deutsche Werbewissenschaftliche Gesellschaft e.V. (DWG), it aims to promote advertising science and facilitate knowledge transfer. The DWG is led by an honorary board chaired by H. Dieter Dahlhoff, with members including scholars and industry experts from across the German-speaking world. Vinsmokegerma (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  this is their website: https://transfer-zeitschrift.net/ Vinsmokegerma (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The title "bank executive" could be applied to any bank employee who has a desk and/or their own office space. This reads like an employment resume. "modernizing the bank's operations and expanding its services" could be any number if things. We know his career advancements, but nothing whatsoever about any notable achievements. — Maile (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As CEO, Wolfgang Müller transformed BBBank from a niche civil servant bank into a modern cooperative retail bank. He expanded the customer base beyond public employees, led the digitalization of services, and maintained the bank’s financial stability through crises. I believe he played a key role within BBBank, and his contributions were valuable. Vinsmokegerma (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Mechanic (Film) (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 film. Literally nothing aside from press releases and basic announcements COOLIDICAE🕶 17:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of significance --TonySt (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Iiii I I I (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly self-promotion, and without declaration of a COI. Barry Wom (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since the film has not yet been released there's no place that this could be redirected to. (Per a discussion at WP:FILM, film articles can be redirected to list pages even if they are non-notable.) It's never been confirmed if short films can be included in pages like List of American films of 2025, but it's never been said that it can't either - so whenever this releases, if there's zero coverage it can just be included on the list page for that given year (barring discussion stating that it cannot). But it has to release first. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair they do say case-by-case but I've seen films with pretty much or actually zero coverage get redirected, so we don't have any minimum thresholds for what could be considered something that obviously shouldn't be included. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional article on non-notable film. JTtheOG (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Koledin (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:BIO. Second-division football player with no independent coverage, just database entries. — Moriwen (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. — Moriwen (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – Per the Russian sources present in the article. Svartner (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a saddening case of refbombing, though. Geschichte (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Most of the sources present in the articles are interviews, sources affiliated with the article's subject (websites of his football clubs), a gambling site, and passing mentions. "goleada.ru" source has reasonable coverage, but I don't think this is enough. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability (per analysis above). If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kulovića Street (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)

Looks to fail WP:GNG. Not seeing evidence of the street being notable, only things related to it (the siege or buildings on it). Doesn't pass WP:GEOROAD either. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I mean, GNG isn't at zero: [23] [24] but it's also not the strongest. SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DraCor (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)

I see nothing independent that suggests this meets WP:NCORP. No mentions anywhere and only a single WP:ZENODO PDF. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 16:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Museums and libraries, Websites, Europe, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep - see Bibliography of Research Actively Using DraCor in the article's External Links section. There are dozens of independent, reliable references listed. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per A. B. From the ones I spot checked, most of the research that uses DraCor also provides independent, secondary SIGCOV of it as a tool (e.g. evaluating its strengths and weaknesses, describing its features). This appears to be a widely used corpus in computational drama studies and has been discussed extensively in the research literature. MCE89 (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs work, but there are independent secondary sources for this. Worst case there is always a merge. Archrogue (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all of the sources in that bibliography give sigcov but a decent amount do, which is fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion Engine (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:GNG. I'm pretty sure these references are hallucinated, as besides the IGN one, none resolve (the GameSpot one resolves too, but because it's using the ID of a different article). ~ A412 ^talk! 16:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Hanger 13, the studio that developed it. Masem (t) 17:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree that there's anything to merge. The article content fundamentally fails WP:V if the information is cited to sources that don't actually exist. "Fusion Engine" has zero hits in the VG custom search engine. (It has one, but it's not related to this engine). ~ A412 ^talk! 18:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't find the references, so unless the creator can come up with them, it appears to fail GNG. It is also troubling and the creator seems disruptive already, so intervention may be necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hanger 13 or draftify. A new article with forged sources should just not hit mainspace. I would encourage you to just use draftification for these things rather than AFD. MarioGom (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Fusion engine as miscapitalisation. I don't see any value redirecting to Hangar 13, with way too little available to be worth mentioning elsewhere. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Redirect to Fusion engine makes sense. MarioGom (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Fusion engine. I added a ref to Mafia III and Mafia: Definitive Edition articles and updated the disambiguation page. Now both Mafia games and Descent 3 have statements about using "Fusion Engine". --Mika1h (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeringonza (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)

I don't feel very strongly about this one, however it was noted in the recent RM discussion (which I closed) that this article lacks sufficient reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Unfortunately a check of the other two wikis this is on demonstrates a lack of overall sourcing for this topic. This could be deleted, or alternatively redirected to a related topic such as Pig Latin, which seems fairly similar. On the off chance the sourcing is improved while this is listed here, we can always have another RM to discuss the spelling, as it will be relevant at that point. ASUKITE 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Spain, and South America. ASUKITE 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VOOsport World (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:GNG, sourced to primary sources and database entries. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Belgium. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Luxembourg. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keenan Beavis (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)

Second AfD -- the first one reached a Delete concensus. This began as me trying to do a cleanup of sources and to improve the article as per WP:BEFORE but the more I worked in it the more I realized it does not meet WP:N. Sources cited are mostly WP:TRADES or WP:PROMO (in some cases actual straight-up AI SEO spam articles).

• Ground News aggregate (duplicate of a UFV source)
• Investers Hangout -- Very obvious AI SEO spam article
• Testimonial for SEO platform that was being used as a source? This is the only source for the "Publications" section. Testimonials are inherently not independent or credible.
• Daily Hive "Branded Content" -- this is a paid advertisement

Most of the articles I can find on this person appear to be the result of intensive SEO efforts rather than genuine significant coverage in independent secondary sources. The secondary sources that I've been able to find only write about him in the context of being the founder of a marketing agency. As detailed in the original AfD, the trades industry awards or "top" listings referenced in the article are not automatically noteriety claims. TonySt (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. TonySt (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete this is absolutely PR/vanity spam about a non-notable person. COOLIDICAE🕶 17:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the nominator that the mentioned 4 sources are not appropriate, however the remaining sources are OK. For example these sources have enough coverage and don't look like PR or paid placement:

-aldergrovestar.com

-bcbusiness.ca

-sauder.ubc.ca - A university website, can't be paid placement

-alumni.ufv.ca Alumini website, cant be paid

-bcbusiness.ca 30 under 30 This type of coverage can't be paid

-mnbc.ca Award win coverage, can't be paid

Also, the original AFD was in 2022 and the majority of sources cited are after 2022, so that result is irrelevant by now. Rubenpurer (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is a new source I have Found:

Canadian SME Small Business Magazine Page 41-43 Rubenpurer (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Daisy (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)

No WP:SIGCOV that I could find so as to meet WP:NFILM. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Ghana. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 18:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Per a prior discussion at WP:FILM, it looks like films can redirect to list pages regardless of notability status. We don't currently have a page that is specifically for Ghanian films, so we have a bit of a choice here - we can create List of Ghanaian films of 2024 and have this as the sole entry (and hope that more get added) or we could create a more general page called List of Ghanian films and compile all of the entries there. So far it looks like there are only 70 films with articles so it could be held together there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Nepal National Independent Students Union (Sixth) (RJM group) (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)

Single source. Neither reliable nor significant. No online coverage about this union. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Schools, and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Only 1 source and that is also archived. Agletarang (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• keep there is some in depth coverage here and independent coverage here and here, there is news coverage of them [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] some of which contain in-depth coverage of the electoral mechanics and factions in the organization. Clearly notable. --hroest 20:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  you are mistaken. There are other such unions with similar names. Plz make sure you search with exactly same name ( Sixth) RJM group. If you find anything with that particular name , plz let me know. There are many unions with initial name All Nepal National Independent Student Union but here sixth and RJM group is also included which lacks notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, the sources I found indeed seem to be for a similarly named but different organization. ---hroest 11:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Rastriya Janamorcha as a new section titled "Youth wing". Yue🌙 05:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable movement. An organization with 59 district branches is not insignificant. --Soman (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bagus Ilham (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 coverage satisfying WP:BIO, although it's possible there's something in Indonesian that I'm missing. Player for a second-tier football club; sources are a database entry, a brief article mentioning a transfer, and an instagram post. — Moriwen (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. — Moriwen (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Revolutionary Students' Union (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 doesn’t cite any article neither it has online coverage. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Schools, and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Nepal Workers Peasants Party as a new section titled "Youth wing". Yue🌙 22:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nepal Revolutionary Students' Union, a.k.a. Nekravisangh, is a major organization. It has declined in the past, but it was the dominant student movement in Bhaktapur for many years. --Soman (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Nepal Workers Peasants Party. There is some WP:ROUTINE coverage, especially if you search with the native name. मल्ल (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Cosimi (footballer) (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:BIO. Player in a semi-professional football league with about three total sentences of coverage and a database entry; no in-depth coverage to be found. — Moriwen (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. — Moriwen (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Career never got off the ground; ensuing lack of sigcov. Geschichte (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yoan Bornosuzov (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:BIO. One brief article covering his signing, and two database entries; not enough coverage in reliable sources under either his name in Bulgarian or the transliteration. — Moriwen (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. — Moriwen (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 18:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – Per above. Svartner (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Christian Democratic Politics (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)

No evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. C679 14:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C679 14:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into KDU-ČSL as WP:ATD. I'm aware there are no reliable sources here yet, but a redirect is appropriate, and the parent article doesn't need any more than a cursory mention which can easily be sourced. Jdcooper (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, found a source mentioning the institute. Not sufficient to support a standalone article, but confirms that it exists and what it is, I can merge to parent article when this AfD is closed. Jdcooper (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party of Greens (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)

No evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. C679 14:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C679 14:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Existing political party nominated for deletion? What is this? --ThecentreCZ (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This party had representation in the Czech Parliament, albeit briefly. Of course it's notable, and there are a number of secondary sources on the Czech article. It just needs expansion/translation. Jdcooper (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep - the Czech article at cs:Demokratická strana zelených – Za práva zvířat cites 16 references. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you see this as a snow keep considering the number of references is no indication of notability, plus the fact that this party has never returned any candidates at an election? C679 07:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that someone is considering indication of notability? We keeping all parties. This is not living persons. How do you for example see this article Ondřej Štursa as notable with two links? ThecentreCZ (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political parties are subject to WP:ORG. There is no Wikipedia policy to have a page on every political party. C679 11:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "every political party", but it had representation in the Czech parliament. And the Czech article about the same topic has plenty of sources which can be used to expand this one. Jdcooper (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Harding (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)

Just a year ago, this page was redirected following an AfD discussion due to lack of WP:GNG-qualifying coverage and a failure to pass WP:NPOL. The page has been recreated at much greater length but I am not seeing the kind of WP:SIGCOV we need to see. To the extent there is any secondary coverage here, it is either local coverage that is limited to her role as mayor or a mayoral candidate ([30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in WP:ROUTINE election coverage ([36], [37]). I am concerned that this article also fails WP:NOT by constituting WP:OR, considering the extensive use of WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, including official bios or statements ([38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]), primary source election results ([46], [47], [48]), and the subject's own Facebook posts ([49], [50], [51]). There is also a high likelihood of WP:SYNTH given the page creator's use of several sources that do not even mention Harding ([52], [53], [54], [55], [56]). I see no warrant for a standalone page here and seek a fresh consensus for a redirect to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep There appears to be enough information to establish notability Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since the previous AfD, she did get a fair bit of national media coverage earlier this year for a brief period after the council tried to pass a rule to gag her: e.g. [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]. There's also this piece in The Australian, which is probably slightly better than anything the article currently cites. I'm not convinced yet that it's quite enough to satisfy GNG, but all of the recent corruption in the Ipswich council does mean there's a little bit more non-routine and non-local coverage than I'd otherwise expect. MCE89 (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am quite new to writing articles on Wikipedia, but this feels premature as I am currently in the process of completing this and clearly haven't finished it. As the first Mayor of Ipswich following the unprecedented dismissal of the entire council, Teresa Harding is undoubtedly a significant political figure, not only within her city but in Queensland local government more broadly. She assumed leadership at a time of crisis and undertook systemic reforms aimed at restoring public trust in local government – reforms that have received both national media attention and industry recognition.

  Harding’s creation of the Transparency and Integrity Hub was widely reported on as an Australian first in public sector accountability, and the platform has since gone on to win multiple awards for excellence in governance. Her leadership in transparency and open government has been cited as a model across local councils nationwide — this is not routine coverage. It's coverage directly tied to reforms that positioned Ipswich as a benchmark for integrity in public service.

  She has been profiled and quoted in national publications (e.g. The Australian, ABC News, and Brisbane Times) on issues beyond just local council matters, such as integrity, government reform, and the broader challenges facing local government post-administration.

  These are not WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or strictly WP:LOCAL stories. There is sustained, significant, and thematic coverage of Harding's efforts as a reformist figure in a city recovering from major scandal. Furthermore, WP:NPOL outlines that political figures merit a standalone article when they have held a significant office, especially when their work has attracted meaningful coverage. The role of Mayor of Ipswich — one of Queensland’s largest and most politically scrutinised cities — clearly meets this threshold. The fact that Harding's governance is the subject of national discussion and awards only further reinforces this.

  Yes, the article (like many local politician entries) includes primary sources — but these are verifiable and properly cited alongside reputable secondary sources. If you want more, allow me the oppurtunity TO add more. It is unreasonable to dismiss a subject’s notability purely because official council statements or bios are included for factual grounding. The argument of WP:SYNTH also does not apply where context is clearly and faithfully drawn from the cited material.

  To remove a page like this, particularly when Harding remains in office and continues to garner national attention, seems premature and contrary to WP’s mission of documenting notable public figures whose actions affect Australian governance.

  Let’s improve the article, not delete it. Remarka6le (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SYNTH absolutely applies where context is clearly and faithfully drawn from the cited material. If you are drawing context that's not present in secondary sources on Harding, you are engaged in original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  With respect, I believe your interpretation of WP:SYNTH is being applied too rigidly here. The policy does not prohibit contextually relevant information so long as each piece is verifiable and used within its intended scope. None of the sources in question ([23]–[27]) are being used to draw conclusions about Harding herself that are not explicitly supported by the sources. They are used to establish a critical and well-documented event: the sacking of Ipswich City Council.

  The policy on synthesis (WP:SYNTH) is only violated when sources are combined to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of them. But in this case, the sources all clearly state that the council was dismissed due to systemic misconduct, and that a period of administration followed. That is an undisputed historical fact, covered broadly and independently in reliable media — including at the national level. Stating that Harding was elected as mayor following that event is not original analysis; it’s chronology.

  Wikipedia:No original research even clarifies that "rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research." That’s precisely what’s been done here. There’s no leap in logic, no implied conclusion, and certainly no novel interpretation. It’s simply a well-sourced recounting of events that are directly relevant to Harding’s notability as the first post-dismissal mayor.

  What would constitute a violation is failing to cite those events and instead summarising them unsourced — which would make the article unverifiable. The argument that mentioning the context of her office constitutes SYNTH would set a troubling precedent: it would mean we couldn’t refer to major public events unless every article about every individual involved was named explicitly in the same source. That’s not how encyclopaedic writing works, nor how WP:NOR is intended to function. Remarka6le (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. Even if there is more non-routine coverage, this is basically a promotional biography and not an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 15:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate the concern around promotional tone, but I’d argue that’s a solvable issue through collaborative editing, not a reason for deletion or redirection.

  If there are parts of the article that read as promotional, strip back the tone, add balance, and bring in more neutral language where needed. That’s exactly what Wikipedia’s editing process is for. Deleting the entire article — especially when there is now more non-routine, nationally relevant coverage — feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  Redirecting to List of Mayors of Ipswich also isn’t a constructive alternative. That page is a shell — it lacks meaningful detail, context, or the capacity to fairly represent Harding’s role. Collapsing a complex and award-winning tenure into a bullet point does a disservice to readers and the subject. Remarka6le (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of sources [23] to [27] — these are not being used to make claims about Harding personally, but rather to establish the extraordinary circumstances surrounding her election. As the first mayor following the dismissal of Ipswich City Council for systemic misconduct and corruption, Harding's role cannot be meaningfully understood without reference to that context.

The scale of the council’s dismissal is directly relevant to the significance of Harding’s office. It is not possible, nor responsible, to write about a reform mayor brought in after a scandal of this size without referencing the event that made her election necessary in the first place.

Wikipedia requires verifiability — I can’t simply say “she was elected after the council was sacked” without reliable sources to confirm that. That’s exactly what [23]–[27] provide. They document the reasons for the council’s dismissal and form the factual, contextual bedrock for understanding Harding’s tenure.

Removing those references or dismissing them as unrelated misunderstands how context works in biographical writing. Harding’s notability is inextricably linked to the fallout of the corruption scandal. That context isn’t WP:SYNTH — it’s essential, and well-sourced. Remarka6le (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: just being a local mayor does not mean a person qualifies for a Wikipedia article. The "best" articles here (ABC) were in the "local politics" section. I just don't think they're enough to show Wikipedia notability, since all local politicians receive at least some coverage. Also if you are new here, please familiarise yourself with WP:BLUDGEON. I do not think you are bludgeoning yet, and you are allowed to argue your point, but it is a good policy to know. SportingFlyer T·C 19:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If no secondary sources about Harding say that she was elected after the council was sacked, then Wikipedia shouldn't say that. To use primary sources or sources that don't mention her to make that claim about her is a form of WP:OR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The council’s dismissal is a well-sourced public fact. Using those sources to establish a timeline is not WP:OR — it’s verifiable background. No interpretation is being added. Saying “she was elected after the dismissal” is a factual, time-based statement that doesn’t require the dismissal and Harding to be in the same sentence in a source to be accurate, as long as both are independently cited. That’s consistent with policy. Remarka6le (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTPROMO/ and WP:No original research. @Remarka6le Promotional tone falls under a specific WP:NOT guideline (the page that details what we DO NOT INCLUDE). Promotional tone is a clearly deletable offense under policy. Additionally, the sourcing is borderline; leaning in my opinion on the fail side on whether this meets WP:SIGCOV. To rescue this article it would require a complete rewrite to comply with wikipedia's policies against promoting the subject with an eye/ear towards maintaining an encyclopedic tone that is neutral and written in an impartial manner. Better sourcing is also needed to comply with WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:SYNTH policies per the concerns raised by DClemens . Leaving an article in this state in mainspace is not an option. A possible WP:ATD would be to draftify and require it to pass an WP:AFC review prior to moving back to main space. That would give interested editors time to fix the tone, original synthesis, and sourcing issues, and provide a necessary review process to ensure basic standards are met before the page goes live again.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’d absolutely be open to the article being draftified and going through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process, rather than it being deleted outright. That seems like a far more constructive outcome, especially given that there are editors (myself included) willing to work on improving the tone, structure, and sourcing to bring it up to standard. Remarka6le (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Draftify – Teresa Harding's tenure as Mayor of Ipswich is marked by significant reforms, notably the launch of Australia's first local government Transparency and Integrity Hub. This initiative has received national accolades, including the Smart Cities Australia-New Zealand award, and has been instrumental in restoring public trust post the 2018 council dismissal. Given her role in pioneering open governance and the sustained, non-trivial coverage of her efforts, Harding meets the WP:POLITICIANS notability criteria. I support draftification and review through the WP:AFC process to enhance the article's quality and compliance with Wikipedia standards. Remarka6le (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep preferably but Draftify if necessary. The mayor of a municipality of 200,000 is obviously notable and there is plenty of coverage just from the public broadcaster and the national press alone. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-31/qld-paul-tully-ipswich-city-council-mayor-gag-allegation/104877954 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-28/ipswich-council-teresa-harding-paul-tully-media-gag/104866348 https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnation%2Fpolitics%2Fnew-ipswich-mayor-teresa-harding-cleans-closet-after-corruption-investigation%2Fnews-story%2F8cf83650b8a985c2ca1a236443871058&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=GROUPA-Segment-1-NOSCORE&V21spcbehaviour=append
• Draftify: Again, this subject fails all ramifications of NPOL. That being said, the criteria for GNG is also not satisfied (multiple independent, reliable, and substantial coverages). Dclemens gave a proper analysis above as to why. This would need to go through AfC if for nothing else, for surety that GNG is met before acceptance, of course, unless she occupies a NPOL-notable office in the future. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / Draftify – The article on Teresa Harding appears to meet the criteria set out in WP:SIGCOV, based on the sources currently cited. Deletion does not seem warranted. That said, if there are concerns about notability depth or article quality, draftification could be a suitable interim step. — DroneStar87 (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As nominator I am OK with draftify as an option for the page creator to demonstrate notability, along with a recommendation to submit through AfC so we're not right back here if this gets moved unilaterally to mainspace. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that all politicians receive some sort of significant coverage, so we look at the depth of coverage especially for local positions per WP:NPOL. Given this vote is (possibly) your first edit, that may not be obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 16:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Manners, Marquess of Granby (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)

WP:NOTGENEALOGY; no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are enough good sources to show that this person is notable. They have been written about in major newspapers and magazines like The Telegraph, The New York Times, The Independent, and Tatler. Diogo Costa (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Charles Manners is the heir to the Dukedom of Rutland, one of the oldest and most prominent titles in the UK. While he hasn’t inherited the title yet, he holds a well-established courtesy title. He has appeared in reliable sources beyond just birth announcements or society pages, including coverage related to the family estate (Belvoir Castle) and broader public interest in the British aristocracy. That meets the general notability guidelines. There’s also precedent on Wikipedia for keeping pages about heirs to major peerages, especially when they’re in the public eye. Deleting this article would be inconsistent with how similar figures are treated. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - he's pretty high up in the aristocracy and has gotten coverage enough. Bearian (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I personally watchlisted this article because I had plans of making edits to it, there are reliable sources found on the article Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 22:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles S. Dorion (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)

Mainly notability concerns per WP:ARTIST, as well as some ambiguity over whether all sources refer to the same individual. See talk page discussion for more details. Pineapple Storage (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Visual arts. Pineapple Storage (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources 7 and 8 are trivial mentions of the individual, not about his the artist... Nothing found otherwise, Getty ULAN only has a Pierre, born a century later [62]. There just isn't enough about this person to have even a stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The doggerel gives this stub a certain quaint appeal, but doesn't make up for the lack of notability. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chromebook challenge (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)

WP:NOTNEWS Launchballer 09:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. If this topic still has coverage in news or scholarly media a year from now (ha!) we can re-create the article. We don't need to index every passing fad (note how every single source is from the past week). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  After the dust settles down, this will be remembered similar to the blackout, tide pod, and devious lick challenges and be mentioned time-to-time when talking about challenges. Would say leave it for now, then after the dust settles then we see. 2603:8001:8400:DC34:76E5:4D55:D814:774F (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with Anon here. This meme will still be remembered, even after its peak relevancy. It's an example of the crazy things people do for clout, and is far more dangerous and noteworthy than some other internet challenges. The reasons that the 2025 Pakistan-India missle strike has an article, applies here (unless the conflict escalates). Thegoofhere (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lanch, I'm pretty sure you're supposed to give a reason in your nomination. Ameright?

Also, comitting arson for Tiktok views would still probably be a talking point (but more minor) in 7 months. Thegoofhere (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it still is, as of now. Thegoofhere (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence this flash in the pan social media fad passes WP:NEVENT; we would need to see WP:SUSTAINED coverage. And WP:NOTNEWS, while not effusive, is a valid deletion rationale since WP:NOT is the second part of the two-part WP:GNG test. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagree buddy: There is evidence that it passes WP:NEVENT. I quote it for ya.

  "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact"

  It has national impact, many American schools have put out messages stating that students must stop doing the trend. Sources from the article show that incidents of the trend have recorded in 15 US states. Plus, a student was charged for arson whilst participating in the challenge. [63][64] You hear that? A charge of ARSON.

  It's a trend that promoted crime, has garnered attention from firefighters and schools, covered in various news sources, is popular even after a week, destroyed property, and led to an arrest.

  Yeeessss, very unotable.ಠ_ಠ Thegoofhere (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

just keep it on bro 166.109.26.101 (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

istg there are undocumented terrorists out there and your worried about some stupid article of a true challenge 166.109.26.101 (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the sky is blue. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whataboutism 165.140.214.242 (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing to do with the discussion, there is no point keeping this article on a very likely short-lived fad. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anon wasn't talking to you, nor disagreeing with you. Thegoofhere (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I guess we could draft this, but who knows where it will be in six months. This will likely be forgotten... TOOSOON, the articles are less than two weeks old at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s impossible to predict whether this will have lasting effects. Predicting the future is simply impossible and CRYSTAL. We should reconsider deletion 4 months from now. 73.75.170.176 (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON as this is most likely to die down within months. This can be merged into Chromebook article. Patre23 (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with either List of Internet Phenomena or Chromebook. SchoolChromebookUser (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is way too trivial to be mentioned at Chromebook anywhere other than its See also section, but I could get on board with redirecting this to List of Internet challenges (which is where List of Internet phenomena#Challenges takes you).--Launchballer 15:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Went through the List of Internet challenges article, it is mentioned in the crime section and was added back in the 8th of May. A merge could suffice since it is already mentioned. SchoolChromebookUser (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think a merge is needed. What criteria does the article not follow, does it need to be reduced to a minor mention? Thegoofhere (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I take it back. If the result is "delete" then we should put it on List of Internet challenges. But the article has a lot of information that could be lost if it was put there. Thegoofhere (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Run of the mill internet trend. It’s too early to tell whether this will have any lasting impact. Golem08 (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not opposed to redirecting to the entry at List of Internet challenges. Golem08 (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if there's still new coverage after a short period of time. If not. Turn it into a Draft.Thegoofhere (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep its going to at least get metioned time to time so as the other TikTok trends like devious lick, Tide Pods. and if this don't get coverage in a

couple months then it can be deleted and i doubt it will "die down" after getting covered by the biggest reliable source of wikipedia,The New York Times and based on the page views and Google Search Trend which shows over 100 searches and the related searches are "TikTok Challenge" and for the page views and its getting 28 views per a day because its getting AfD'ed, one of the biggest TikTok challenges blowing up right now and people are confused and don't know what it is because its getting AfD'ed. Momentoftrue (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Also, its still getting coverage. Most memes die within like, 2 days. To even pass 1 week proves its a noteworthy subject, even if it's not as popular after a couple of days. Thegoofhere (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it's been long enough for most independent articles about the challenge to be secondary Thegoofhere (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm so sorry, but "trends" like these come and go so quickly; there's a 99% chance this is going to be forgotten by the next month. If it isn't, I stand corrected. However, it is far too soon for a page and shows no signs of continuing notability. If anything, it could be mentioned on Chromebook if this "challenge" lasts longer. jolielover♥talk 07:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jolielover. It's probably best to refrain from making speculative comments. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  99% percent? That's way too much. The meme is not a fad you'd brush off in like, 2 days. It's still being covered, and the dangers of the trend could cause death. Thegoofhere (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:DOGBITESMAN-type coverage. Not helped by the WP:BLUDGEONING of the article creator here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  People setting their Chromebooks on fire is a routine event that happens all the time? If you're gonna cite a wikipedia policy page, cite one that's relevant. Thegoofhere (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – If this article is deleted, do editors feel this is noteworthy for discussion on the main Chromebook article? In other words, should the contents of this page be merged instead? An IP asked about this a few days ago, before this article was created, and I had similar concerns about long-term notability. However, I just looked this topic up and saw that it has indeed indeed seen coverage by NYT, ABC News, and the like. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find out about this phenomenon from local coverage of one incident. I came here to get more and found useful context and technical details. Remembering this phenomenon long term seems important as a cautionary tale. -- Beland (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect - into the similar Devious lick trend. which both of these trends are very similar. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thurii (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)

Found while browsing Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles. Cannot find any books or sources that mention this supposed battle that predate the creation of this article in 2007. The only "citations" this article has are incomplete citations which just say a book title and nothing else. No authors, no year of publishing, no ISBN, nothing. And the "source" titles are extremely vague, like "History of Rome" or "Antiquity".

(Note: I know there were actual battles between Tarantos and ancient Rome for control of the area, but I cannot find evidence that "Battle of Thurii" was one of those battles, or that there was any "naval battle" for the region.) ApexParagon (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Greece, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The editor who created this stub seems to have been inactive on Wikipedia since 2013, but nothing on his/her talk page suggests that it was created as a hoax (I was looking for warnings of various sorts). Given that the part about Thurii is only a single sentence, while the rest concerns Rome's conflict with Tarentum, I wonder if perhaps the editor was confused about the sequence of events—perhaps including the dates. My first thought was to check the history of the cities in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, and see if it mentioned something similar to a battle at this time. Under "Tarentum", at p. 1097, if you scroll down the first column there's a description of Rome and Tarentum coming into conflict over Thurii, though this is supposed to have occurred in 302 BC, while the Tarentines didn't call in Pyrrhus until 281, when the Romans declared war on Tarentum.

This sounds like what the article creator had in mind, but unless the description is in error—which is possible, though it's hard to see "302" as a typo for "282" under "Tarentum"—the editor might have been confused by a less precise description such as the corresponding passage under "Thurii", top of the first column on p. 1193. I believe both are citing Appian's Samnite Wars, though additional sources are cited in "Tarentum" that might also shed light on this. I agree that the existing citations for this article are not very helpful, but thankfully knowing what sources describe the conflicts may help sort out whether there's enough here to salvage (at the very least, it can probably be merged under Thurii, Tarentum, and Pyrrhus, which would technically not be a deletion).

I expect Broughton can also be cited. I did not resort to PW, because wading through pages of densely-annotated German that I have to translate by retyping passages that I think are relevant on Google can be quite time-consuming! Not sure where else I would look besides the Greek and Roman authors cited in the DGRG, but perhaps someone else has some ideas on that. In any case, I think we can conclude that the article is not a hoax, but it might not be focused on its purported subject—Thurii—and might be better off mentioned in other articles than as a stand-alone one. P Aculeius (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - probably not a hoax. The Catalan article, ca:Batalla de Turis, and the Italian article, it:Battaglia di Thurii, were edited by two different editors who have not edited this article. Both have offline references.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...Sings Modern Talking: Let's Talk About Love (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)

No evidence of this album passing WP:NALBUM, charting, or receiving critical responses. A copy of this mainspace version is at the draftspace, so this looks more like a copy-and-paste move. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Germany. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• draftify for now. Given that the previous release did chart at number 5 in Germany, this one might as well chart, but we don't know. Alternatively these 6 past and future releases could just have one article under the title "Magic". Bedivere (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Now that it's reached number 5 in the German charts I think it's fine to keep Bedivere (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bedivere Citation, please? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  https://www.offiziellecharts.de/charts/album Bedivere (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Redirect with history to Thomas Anders, but do not delete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jax 0677 It now passes WP:NALBUM as it charted at #5 in the German charts. Bedivere (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Thomas Anders#Discography. Charting in and of itself does not make the album notable. Chart positions can simply be noted at the target page. There is no other indication of significant coverage. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  NALBUM states: "Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria: 2. The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart." This album appeared in three national charts.

  And there are some German language sources which cover this album in particular, from reputable sources. I'm not proficient at that language so I can't add them, but someone hopefully will. Bedivere (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Laut.de [65] Schlagerprofis (Widely cited in German Wiki and some articles here) [66] --Bedivere (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bedivere. They do have a point. Some of the other albums seem to have their own page too. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Response on the national charts position?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect if they have more albums pages like this someone should look into it. Chart positions do not grant albums notability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Our policy says it does. Bedivere (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "May be notable"...it also has to meet general notability guidelines. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of world champions in WWE born outside the United States (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)

Seems to be original research and fancruft. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Wrestling. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason as bundle AFD:

List of WWE male wrestlers born outside the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of NJPW male wrestlers born outside Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of WWE female wrestlers born outside the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BinaryBrainBug (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all of them. Those lists are just fancruft, out of scope, and catalogue-like. They are not even acceptable/passable as category. --Mann Mann (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am literally using these lists today as a refrence 71.43.164.34 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ITSUSEFUL Geschichte (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This information is relevant, taking into account the internalization that WWE has had throughout its history. EnglishLuicheto (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Internalization? Geschichte (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wall (guitarist) (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)

Musician from non-notable band. Passing mentions in local press as a part of his band. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Rift (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens Group (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:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. As of now, the page is a WP:PROMO. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Andhra Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nominator rationale. Chronos.Zx (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of WP:RS to meet WP:NCORP. Several of the sources are primary while others are press releases announcing awards and contracts and partnerships. Patre23 (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This lacks notability also it is fully promotional and looking like an advertisement.Almandavi (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NCORP - Imcdc Contact 00:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VPR Mining Infra Private Ltd (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:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Andhra Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article lacking sources to demonstrate its notability for an article here. Patre23 (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems to be old article but needs to be cited with notable news references.Almandavi (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Star (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:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed and not a WP:LISTED company, as it claims on the page. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Andhra Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KSK Energy Ventures (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:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Andhra Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Advertising Pakistan (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:NCORP. Sources are PR sponsored articles disguising as WP:RS Mekomo (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would a redirect to Synergy Group be a possible ATD? – The Grid (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Synergy Advertising Pakistan is not a subsidiary of the South American Synergy Group. It's a misleading information. Charlie (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not notable enough to have a standalone article. Redirect to main Synergy Group article and a mention among it's subsidiaries will be enough. Muneebll (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:PROMO. Straightforward delete. Charlie (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aparna Enterprises (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:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree per nom. Asteramellus (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Jepsen (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)

Contested draftification, so here we are. (Why not just let it stay in draft space?) It was draftified as only relying on database sources, and was readded with no valid sources. The only sources are a database and two instances of her name appearing in lists. These are nowhere near significant coverage, cf. WP:SPORTCRIT: "All sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources". I could find no other Danish sources in a WP:BEFORE (a language I can read and speak). I'm by no means opposed to it being draftified again, but it then has to go through the AFC process, I think. Geschichte (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Since the draft submission process was not respected. Svartner (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I translated this article from Spanish before it was unilaterally moved to draftspace. I added more references and moved it back. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Danish language sources. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They too just mention her name among many Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is because the medals were won in team events. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the policy excerpt above. They need individual coverage about their person. Geschichte (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy does not specifically cover rowing making it somewhat confusing. Compared to other pages in Category:Danish female rowers this article is better sourced so what is the standard? Moondragon21 (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy covers any and all sports. Regardless of sport, people need individual coverage about their person to have an article. Without that, it's not well sourced - in fact, having one reference with individual coverage about their person is the minimum standard. Geschichte (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only translated the article believing that a medal winning world champion in rowing was notable. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done, and as I said in the nomination, I am willing to move it back into draft space. Such a medalist "should" be notable, but then again, it's not our job to decide that, but rather the abundance of in-depth sources... Geschichte (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. Would AFC be preferred to using Wikipedia:CXT? Moondragon21 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support a move to draftspace. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2003 World Rowing Championships. Not enough coverage for stand alone page. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: commenters seem split between redirecting as an ATD and deleting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough significant coverage. Angryapathy (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humming Airways (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)

Nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in reliable and secondary sources. WP:TOOSOON also. Bakhtar40 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Argentina. Bakhtar40 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Moderate Keep It might be seen as WP:TOOSOON but has some coverage in the media WP:BTMBS. [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]. There are many more websites and I am not sure which ones are actually reliable but some are reliable Argentinian news websites. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HilssaMansen19, None of the sources you gave are reliable. All of them look like paid articles. Bakhtar40 (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes in WP:NCORP. Svartner (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartner, On which ground it passes WP:NCORP. Let's talk about the references. Bakhtar40 (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll try to summarize the sources:
  • [1]. Infobae appears to be significant coverage, though there is no byline on this article.
  • [2]. Humming Airways published by the subject itself, does not contribute to notability.
  • [3]. Aviacion News this is an interview with the founders, does not contribute to notability.
  • [4]. Aviacionline reads as... very promotional.
  • [5]. Villamaria Vivo this provides the reader with a helpful link to purchase an inexpensive flight. I would say this is not independent.
  • [6] InfoGEI Independent, but not significant coverage; just describes the airline's first flight in 4 sentences.
  • [7] Promociones Aereas Promotional website that provides timetables and prices for booking a flight. Not significant, independent coverage.
  • [8] Info Viajera This is just a press release with 4 sentences of introduction. Not significant, independent coverage.
• Based on this I lean delete as the sources in the article do not demonstrate significant, independent coverage from reliable sources. -- Reconrabbit 19:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm not sure about the reliability of HilssaMansen19's sources, but I think the Aviacion News interview has enough to count towards notability per Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability and isn't the only coverage there. Aviacionline reads as enthusiastic which tracks with that part of the world and does not mean promotional, and isn't the only coverage from them There is also ch-aviation. There is also Perfil, infobae, and La Nacion. Enough for WP:THREE. DCsansei (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[72] - Not a Reliable source, [73] - Not a Reliable source, [74] - Not a Reliable source, [75] - Not a Reliable source, [76] - It can be considered, but it is not a byline, [77] - Not a Reliable source. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The company is too young and has not reached much notability yet. It seems like it was set up to promote the new company. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Either the sources listed are enthusiast blogs and therefore fail WP:RS or are regurgitated press releases and announcements. Doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austral Launch Vehicle (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)

Alright -- this article does have some reliable sources, including TheConversation. The issues here are this: this is an orphaned article, and this vehicle is a concept without WP:SIGCOV. See: it doesn't exist in its final form/ yet. As it doesn't really exist yet, WP:TOOSOON, also seems a bit like it violates WP:NOTPROMO. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Science, Technology, Spaceflight, and Australia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I said in the afd for Marie-Rose Tessier I can't take your argument seriously when you admit you think the sources are reliable in your original rationale also just because it is not complete doesnt mean it isn't ready for an article especially since as you have already admitted there are sources that cover it and how can it be promotional if the sources are reliable? Scooby453w (talk) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 04:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is not the end all be all. Just because something has been covered in a reliable source once does not mean that it is Wikipedia worthy; we also have WP:SIGCOV, meaning that articles need to have significant coverage. That pairs with coverage in reliable sources; this article has one reference to TheConversation; no sigcov in reliable sources. Next, there is WP:SUSTAINED. The coverage needs to be continuing and sustained; the last coverage of this subject was about a decade ago, and there hasn't been anything of note since. Fails that. All in all, clear deletion, unless a Wikipedian can find more recent coverage in reliable sources.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary jusf because it hasn't been in a source in a decade doesnt mean it should be deleted the 3 sources span multiple months its not like its something that shows up once on the morning news Scooby453w (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 04:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is one reliable source from TEN years ago, in TheConversation. Not enough reliable, independent sources. Finally, it doesn't appear that this project has made any noises for almost ten years, and the final product likely doesn't exist. If you find any more sources, please let me know. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we could do a Merge with Australian Space Agency. The total content makes for about one paragraph or so, but it is still of note. Hal Nordmann (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Draftify: The sources on ALV I’ve come across, including Springer papers by researchers from the University of Queensland and Heliaq Advanced Engineering [78], [79], are reliable but not independent, so they don’t satisfy WP:GNG. That said, they confirm ALV’s role in Australia’s aerospace research history. Given this, a merge into Australian Space Agency a broader topic would preserve this material in a more appropriate context, per WP:PRESERVE, or it could be draftified for further development and sourcing. HerBauhaus (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC) Revised !vote HerBauhaus (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Fails WP:GNG and falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements. As AnonymousScholar49 notes, this is a project that appears to have been on the backburner for about a decade, having received no independent SIGCOV in that entire period.

I would be happy with a merge, but is Australian Space Agency really the best place? None of the sources I'm seeing even make mention of the ASA, and I don't see a neat place to fit information on this project into the article as it currently exists. Maybe reusable launch vehicle would be a better merge destination? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've added 4 refs from Google Scholar. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Strong Keep - lots of refs using Google.com.au.^link --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping: @Ethmostigmus, @Hal Nordmann, @HerBauhaus. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, two of the refs you added are duplicates of a reference already in the article (Schutte and Thoreau's "The Austral Launch Vehicle: 2014 Progress in Reducing Space Transportation Cost through Reusability, Modularity and Simplicity"), I assume this was a mistake. The third reference I see you've added, Preller and Smart's "SPARTAN: Scramjet Powered Accelerator for Reusable Technology AdvaNcement", is a conference paper that only briefly mentions the ALV. Both Schutte and Thoreau's paper and Preller and Smart's paper were presented at the same conference, the 12th Reinventing Space Conference that was held in 2014 (they are listed online as being published in 2016/2017, but this is just when the proceedings were made available online - the actual papers were presented in 2014). The fourth reference, "Scramjets for Reusable Launch of Small Satellites" also by Preller and Smart, also seems to only be a passing mention. That gives us two papers from 2014 and one from 2015. Looking at those references and the Google results, I can't find any evidence of further developments since 2015, and even at the time the coverage was quite minimal. This is worth noting because it indicates a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. I maintain that this fails GNG, and is best covered with due weight in an existing article like reusable launch vehicle. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Hi @A. B., I've coincidentally stumbled across the same sources you added as part of my !vote review. The rub here is that all the authors, including Peter Thoreau, Michael Smart, and Dawid Preller from the University of Queensland, and Adriaan Schutte from Heliaq Advanced Engineering, are directly affiliated with the institutions that developed the ALV concept. Since the ALV was created by Heliaq Advanced Engineering and the University of Queensland, I’ve classified these as primary sources. That said, if I’ve been too strict with my interpretation of secondary sources, I’m more than happy to revisit the sourcing question again. HerBauhaus (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. I’ve been convinced this just had to be notable; something about rockets and space just begs press coverage but where was it on Google News?? Then I thought to check http://www.google.com.au -sure enough, there were news articles. It was late last night and I’m busy today; I may or may not get to it. Thanks for looking at this, HerBauhaus. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  At the risk of being accused of "ref-bombing", I have added 7 news articles including Australian Financial Review, the ABC Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Royal Aeronautical Society and Aviation Week & Space Technology (the global aerospace and aviation industry magazine) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• After checking through all of the references you've added, I still do not see evidence of significant or sustained independent coverage. Every source was published between 2014 and 2017, seemingly because the project stalled after that point, and even within that period of active development the coverage is scant. Preller and Smart's works barely mention the ALV, while the ABC and AFR articles mention it only in passing. Aerospace magazine gives a bit more detail, but its coverage is still extremely brief (and focused on SPARTAN, not the ALV). The iTnews article also provides no significant coverage of the ALV, mostly consists of quotes from individuals involved in the project about the potential of reusable launch vehicles. Ditto for the articles in the Register and New Atlas. None of these sources, besides the initial three (non-independent) sources already present in the article, provide coverage that could be considered significant. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 13:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources disagree on terminology. In some articles, the SPARTAN second stage is part of the overall 3-stage project known as the "Austral Launch Vehicle" project. In others, the Austral Launch Vehicle first stage is part of the overall 3-stage project known as the "SPARTAN" project.

  What I know is that the overall 3-stage project is notable. Perhaps the answer is to rename this article to something else. I'm open to suggestions.

  I'm also open to draftifying the article and I will work on it. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The plot thickens.

  It looks like a company formed in 2019, Hypersonix Launch Systems, took over work on the SPARTAN second stage and tested it in 2021. This project, Heliaq Advanced Engineering (ALV's original developer now defunct?) and Hypersonix all have close ties to the University of Queensland's Centre for Hypersonics.

  Also in 2021, the U.S., U.K. and Australia signed the AUKUS agreement in 2021; it included "Hypersonic and Counter-Hypersonic Capabilities" which built on the existing joint U.S.-Australian SCIFiRE hypersonic cruise missile project. The University of Queensland is involved in this as well.

  At the time, hypersonics was touted as Australia's flagship contribution to an agreeement that was mostly about nuclear submarine technology.

  I'm just guessing but Hypersonix and U of Q probably shifted to much more lucrative defense work and away from competing with SpaceX and everyone else. All 3 countries are far behind Russia and China in hypersonic capabilities.

  Collectively all this content is notable and needs a good home on Wikipedia. I'm not sure where -- suggestions? A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Happy to help with any of the heavy lifting if you decide to draftify. Feel free to ping me for sourcing or the write-up. HerBauhaus (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @A. B., the first 7 (existing) sources in the article are from researchers Smart, Schutte, Thoreau, and Preller, all directly tied to UQ/HAE and the ALV project, making them primary sources. Of the next 7 (new) sources you added, only two are solid WP:THREE candidates: The Register offers clear, independent coverage of ALV, and Financial Review provides balanced coverage, though it includes a few quotes from Smart. Three are borderline: ABC is heavily reliant on Smart's quotes, Aviation Week gives technical context but doesn’t focus on ALV, and New Atlas covers ALV under the broader SPARTAN project with heavy developer input. The remaining two, AEROSPACE and iTnews, are weak as they rely almost entirely on developer statements. To be fair, by Australian standards, Smart is not just a typical researcher. He’s a recognized expert in hypersonics who spent a decade at NASA before joining UQ ([80]), which is quite an uncommon profile. This prominence likely explains why he appears in nearly every source on ALV, sometimes tipping the balance on journalistic independence. HerBauhaus (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tianjin Fourth Central Hospital (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)

Similar to the case of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine First Affiliated Hospital, this hospital also appears to fail WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Medicine, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no way a 95-year-old, 880-bed hospital affiliated to (possibly) the best medical university in China is not notable. I'm not going to do a proper source search just this moment, but I will provide references for my claims: [81][82]. Toadspike [Talk] 00:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.This hospital is classified as a Grade A Tertiary Hospital, which means it is one of the highest-level hospitals officially accredited by the Chinese government. It is a non-profit public institution, not commercially operated, and treats tens of thousands of patients annually. Frankly speaking, one reason I focus on writing entries about large public hospitals is to help prevent misleading commercial promotion by smaller private hospitals. The references cited are based on the most authoritative and professional data sources available regarding local healthcare conditions. Has the proposer fulfilled their responsibility in reviewing this content seriously? Have they conducted any academic searches or reviewed relevant literature? I was able to retrieve numerous academic papers through Google Scholar. Or is the proposer simply speculating based on personal unfamiliarity? Such an attitude is neither friendly nor consistent with the rigor and responsibility that this task requires.--Amazingloong (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: GTrang What's your assessment of the existing Chinese sources available in Google, Google News, Google Books, for example? Any other databases you searched? --MarioGom (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fintilect (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)

All prior XfDs for this page: Articles for deletion/Intelligent Environments

Non-notable software company. Routine coverage like M&As, renaming, investments, are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. UPE history is another issue. Gheus (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Software, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after article rescue work (again). Any recent UPE work (if that's what it was) had already been reverted by the nominator. Restore former material of historical interest, e.g. OS/2 software as highlighted in the previous AFD. – Fayenatic London 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I haven't found anything outside of primary sources and routine business announcements. Many sources are "fintech" focused and I tend to view such sources with the same skepticism as crypto focused sites. I haven't found much in the way of notability for the previous iterations of the company either. The sources on the historic article don't seem to meet reliability or notability requirements either. The old page seems like a relic of a more lenient era of wikipedia. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Is not notable and does not have wide coverage in RS. Reads like a promotion. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaobailou station (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)

Doesn't satisfy WP:N and the only source is WP:PRIMARY DankPedia (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. DankPedia (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Line 1 (Tianjin Metro) as the line serving the station, as a WP:ATD-R. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 08:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – WP:PRIMARY says that a primary source may be used ... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. The date the station was opened qualifies as straightforward.
  I also found several sources online that cover Xiaobailou Station: this in-depth one that describes how the station is integrated into a large belowground commercial shopping district, this one from zhwiki that says it was part of a pilot program for line transfer discounts, and these two that say the station is in the top three/four of the Tianjin Metro in terms of passenger traffic. Iiii I I I (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Add them DankPedia (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not required per WP:NEXISTS. MarioGom (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Using an imperative sentence here that commands another editor to add sources is very disrespectful, especially when you continue to support deletion. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article explains why this argument for deletion is not policy-based. Cunard (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Having a shopping center doesn't make the station notable. The China Economic Times is not a RS. The other sources you gave were passing mentions or not notable. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain why China Economic Times is not a RS? It seems to be a proper newspaper. Jumpytoo Talk 00:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:NTRAINSTATION says "train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations." I believe this applies to metro stations as well. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Itzcuauhtli11: That's fair. They have no inherent notability. But is this one notable? What's your assessment of existing Chinese sources? MarioGom (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was only able to find sources about the Xiaobailou Music Square and the Xiaobailou Commercial Street, served by this station. Not anything notable about the station itself (historical importance, artwork inside the station, accidents or other events in the station, etc.) — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is an invalid deletion nomination per WP:NEXISTS. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  When doing my Wikipedia:Before I could not find any Wikipedia:RS. No such sources exist DankPedia (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Chinese sources do exist, and some have been posted above, including one from a Tianjin newspaper. The question is whether existing sources do meet notability criteria. Saying that reliable sources do not exist when it's already proven false does not help. MarioGom (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources do not meet WP:GNG and WP:NTRAINSTATION applies here DankPedia (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Iiii's first source and these two scholarly sources I found make it pass the GNG line.

• Tong, Ruipeng; and Tan, Zhaoyan (2015-04-03). "A risk-based approach for crowd evacuation performance evaluation under metro fire". Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards. 9 (2): 75–95. doi:10.1080/17499518.2015.1030680. ISSN 1749-9518. {{cite journal}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help); |first3= missing |last3= (help); |first4= missing |last4= (help); |first5= missing |last5= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• "城市轨道交通站点周边商业环境特征与评价——以天津市为例" (PDF). 地域研究与开发. 2014 (5): 72–76. 2014-10-01.

Jumpytoo Talk 00:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first paper is about "crowd evacuation performance evaluation under metro fire". It says that for the study the Xiaobailou station was chosen for its proximity to shopping malls and Tianjin Concert Hall, high passenger flow and higher fire risk. Nothing notable about the metro station itself.

The second paper discusses commercial environments surrounding 6 different metro stations in Taijin. It's not about Xiaobailou Station itself and barely talks about it.

None of these sources contribute to the notability to the station. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A full independent scholarly article evaluating the stations fire safety/risks in your opinion does not contribute to SIGCOV/GNG? GNG only requires that there are multiple reliable sources providing non-trivial coverage of the station, which there are. The fact that multiple sources decided "Xiaobailou station is significant enough for me to use as the basis of my study" is the strong sign of notability that is used here. Jumpytoo Talk 16:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This station has higher fires risks than others. I don't believe that issue alone is enough to merit its own article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded DankPedia (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article provides significant coverage about Xiaobailou station through evaluating its fire safety risks. This is encyclopedic information. There is nothing in the text of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline to exclude sources that cover aspects of a subject that editors consider unimportant. Cunard (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources above found by Iiii I I I and Jumpytoo. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The sources found by Iiii I I I and Jumpytoo demonstrate that Xiaobailou station meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bidding stick newspapers (disambiguation) (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)

Unnecessary dab page per WP:DABFOREIGN and WP:PARTIAL, and since the term "bidding stick" doesn't appear in any of the titles (at least not in English). CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Norway. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used "bidding stick" in the title because its a English wiki and they are different words/spelling for bidding sticks used. the most common is Budstikke. Budstikke is a name for several newspapers, and is also the word for bidding sticks. it is also mentioned in the bidding sticks section named "newspapers". article creators many times add something to the beginning as not to conflict with eachother like having "Budstikke" in the name JamesEMonroe (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

theres also Budstikken and bidstikka, both meaning bidding stick. JamesEMonroe (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think even that many articles can be confused with each other with this. not only do they have the same name in the title but the way some of them are separated is not absolute of what can be searched for. plus theres names that is one letter off for wp partial. even ignoring that theres serveral with Budstikke in the title @CycloneYoris JamesEMonroe (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know I may have added some that may or may not be appropriate afterwards but it should not poison with the others to doom

I fear that you haven't looked closely enough into the dab and how its connected. but mainly just the "bidding sticks" as a name JamesEMonroe (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• oh also importantly it is put in after the name at the very beginning of the paragraph of a lot of the articles saying "bidding sticks" for as a name for the news paper.

its just "bidding stick newspaper" wouldn't show up but "bidding stick" will

the ones that don't are likely incomplete and might need that added.

these include pages that are studs and I didn't make them nor the bidding sticks page nor the newspaper section where it is mentioned and talked about where it can be helpful. JamesEMonroe (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page does multiple things

• clears up ambiguity between articles containing the same name: mostly "Budstikke", but theres also others like "Budstikken"
• some of these names are extremely close to each other and can easily be mistaken for each other, they are one letter different while the same word grammatically different or they contain the same word and have in the beginning somthing relating to the newspaper like, its location or author, some have it in its title however the Budstikke is likely the most remember part of the newspaper. the newspaper and subject wouldn't be called bla bla Budstikken, it would be Budstikken as often these are local papers and don't need to differentiate
• There's articles with the same title word Budstikke is a redirect to bidding stick, however it is the name of several newspapers (on its own should be enough to warrant it)
• Connect newspapers with the name Budstikke or similar name, these can be confused and you cant link all these possible ones in article linking without this, users can first hand see the ambiguity, and articles like it grouped with multiple of the same name or similar. this page is and can be linked on these articles to help with disambiguation. this can be used as a hatnote atop to lead to multiple articles with the same name or similar name. no other can do this and too many to add a hat note on top
• its the topic of the section newspapers of the bidding sticks section and could disrupt it
• it informs and educates users of it ambiguity and topic.
• I used bidding sticks to not be language specific and it can be more easily identified and associated in the bidding sticks section which many of these newspaper articles link to. there's also multiple languages, even with it primarily being Norwegian, not all use the same spelling.
• while not its purpose, its a collection of newspapers where "bidding sticks" is used as a name and its small enough for hat list to fit in a dob, and not be over huge, I extensively looked for each one

. however people researching might only have in there head that the newspaper they are after is named after that item in that way but might not know of how it would be in a title in Wikipedia

JamesEMonroe (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it cant be a redirect as there's none with that exact name

there's no over encompassing to merge it with, this is the over encompassing page for these articles

its too small to be a list or information, and its primary function is to lead to articles, but i think ill be able to add info for it to meet article criteria if it means saving it, but I really think its better off as a dob

I gave reasons for its naming but a name change could be vaild.

its a unique situation I feel with the naming, and I hope people can see that JamesEMonroe (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• More can, and are added. there's many newspapers with this name of sorts, most don't have wiki pages or notable enough. but there are notable ones and ones on this wiki that I can link together with this, regardless if they are Norwegian. A name change could limit this which is what i fear and i think its interesting concept enough to see them all together, but its way better then deletion. Also I really don't see how WP:DABFOREIGN applies at all. JamesEMonroe (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as per what I said, and how it doesn't break those.(if I am allowed to vote). if consensus says otherwise for it to be removed, then in some compacity save it. ie soft delete instead of delete or draftify or preferably something else. JamesEMonroe (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear delete for several reasons: The topic should be covered at Bidding stick#Newspapers and only there. It's unfortunately out of place and not valid as a disambiguation page. "Bidding stick newspapers" is not at all a valid encyclopedic topic, it's just a matter of unrelated newspapers sharing the same name. "Bidding stick newspaper" is an entirely novel concept based on one person's interpretation of names, and are never written about as a topic in e.g. a scholarly setting. PS. James E. Monroe, for the future please condense your AFD replies - your contribution above is hard to read, mostly due to being too long and having a non-uniform formatting, but also grammar mistakes which seem to stem from rushed writing. Geschichte (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, @Geschichte Thank you for your fast feedback to get consensus moving.

  as far as a "novel concept" by one person, I will do some research on the matter to give sources please give me atleast beginning of next week to provide them and source them. I will look into it, but I don't think it is true. it certainly wouldn't be me.

  Also I didn't create Bidding stick nor Biddingstick#Newspapers and I didn't create any of the newspapers wikipages

  (PE: no, I'm not saying I cant edit other wikis that I haven't made, in cause you thinking that)

  if you mean as a term, it can be morphed into anything, I am not creating a term or concept here (at least not my goal to), I am creating a DOB. if i pour blue paint on something like a box, is it not permissible to call it a blue box? The reasoning for the name of the dob is what I stated, the name could be decided by the wiki community of course. I connected two words which are true, together that are uncontroversial for the dob name like calling a box that is painted blue a blue box. (unimportant, but to state the intent as it seems to be misunderstood -these are rhetorical questions ~bad ones :p~). anyways you can suggest a better name.

  "it's just a matter of unrelated newspapers sharing the same name" isn't that still important to distinguish between them? since they are so close in naming. need for disambiguation

  Also do you have to suggest the full nuclear option for it then to draftify or userify, or even with another possibility? is there a particular reason?

  (bolding is meant to be relaxed and for readability not yelling)

  will be back with you, hope all is well ^^ JamesEMonroe (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the name and description is not the point and can be changed. The point is to link the articles into a cohesive place that are named in that manner. for disambiguation. No term, concept or original research is to be created as per dob guidelines. Sources have stated the trend of naming, as well as other wikipedia, but I am looking currently for more scholarly examples for you if needed. The point is to be a navigational tool for names that are enough for disambiguation need (see discussion). the short info and description is meant to help navigation and give some little information that trace back to the link Wikipedia's, some inferable liberties I gave myself for explanation but are up to be deleted. and I would like for it description to be more properly worded by another editer

If its to be covered at Bidding stick#Newspapers it wouldn't provide disambiguation value for these articles, and stay as a concise complete cohesive list. it wouldn't be known for edits to use to for disambiguation, which before I helped with some editors were trying to fix by cited one similar article but there's multiple. and if that's to be decided then a merge after fixes and/or redirect is more order. however remember what I said. Many people wouldn't know to associate the two either, or that there's other articles named similarly. Putting it in the article would be larger then the contents in the article already, it also would be likely for redirects to be broken as to debloat the article. without a proper redirect it would be confusing of why in the user mind its redirecting to an object. I thought about the idea of merging after the afd but thought it would be bad for the reasons above, where it wouldn't work out, and seen other dob pages where that could be in articles, but weren't. Deleting it would prevent me from accessing what was in it aswell. Also I might be inaccessible for 2 days also if you could wait before forming destructive consensus in my absence(back got rescheduled). I shouldn't even be talking now with my work, my apoligies. JamesEMonroe (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider not writing any further comments in this discussion. Your comments are getting so long-winded, about 9,000 characters, that it gets impossible for people to follow. Geschichte (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

_{sorry, just saw this. also having the editor open hides and overrides things.} JamesEMonroe (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

some links (what I have not what I am going to research but some of what I have). here is the Wiktionary: https://no.wiktionary.orgview_html.php?sq=Taylor_Swift&lang=en&q=budstikke Wiktionary, and all the Wikipedia articles all point them to being different grammatical tenses of the word. I will try to cite something for this that's good but why do I need further justification then was given to them? if they said it why cant I. being different tenses I think that's enough for a connection. its grammatical changes by one letter

inter change of usage between and articles with a comprehensive analyses on them

• "Budstikke has been used as a name for newspapers and newsletters" source (non academic but still mentioned):https://sonsofnorway5.com/programs/cultural_corner.php

this shows more connection and it as a trend, plus all wiki articles that I find says that they are connected, many newspaper variants have the "(the padding stick)" right in the beginning

• https://wikidocumentaries-demo.wmcloud.org/Q2564702?language=en Bidding stick and Budstikke used together in description of intorduction and in descrition of images, many images inside some labled "budstikke"

Basically if I/it am wrong. you have a potientially large wiki investigate/clean up on your hands if i'm not mistaken. this would be a large

Extending far enough to getting everything to repeat what is said from Wikipedia like the toaster incident, ok thats exaggerated with the toaster but it does feel like it goes deep across wikimedia. websites that seemed to have copied wikipedia: https://muckrack.com/media-outlet/budstikka https://alchetron.com/Bidding-stick

https://www.srku.edu.in/read?s=Budstikka etc.

if this info is incorrect, everything says it, it's a research nightmare.

• Yes "Bidding stick newspapers" doesn't seem to be labeled elsewhere especially since most info is not in english or cared about in the english speaking world. it is suggesting that Budstikke translates to Bidding stick

in English an dis the substitute ( accord to other wiki articles, Wiktionary). So I substituted it, since its an English wiki. it could be renamed Budstikke (newpapers) or (media) idk. would exclude not Norwegian newspapers though, maybe bidding stick (newspaper). it was to categories those traits.

• No I havent added information that cant be inferred outside of Wikipedia, and no I am not doing a "translation list" or my own research. Still my information may of inferred incorrectly or badly worded i'm only human (or assume knowledge).
• no you do not have to agree to my explanations or descriptions. neither any of the ones beyond the name similarities connections here or on the dob, this is a disambiguation issue. Also not every link or category I added for it. this also isnt saying that you should not agree or it shouldn't be added, just it doesn't necessarily have to be
• From information from wikipedia/wikimedia, (yet to get elsewhere) -> Yes(if Wikipedia is 100% correct outside my edits) Budstikke and Budstikka Budstikkian are of the same word and are recognized as such, nothing showing otherwise. example “Budstikka” is the definite singular form of the noun “budstikke” in modern Norwegian Bokmål. see wikinary,
• Budstikke is already a redirect to bidding stick in Wikipedia, but it is used in the name of newspapers we know and is many times labeled as such on respective wikis

Opinion (assuming): Since its essentially the same word, That has a one letter difference it is disambigious between them, especially when they are different newspapers. Some also had previously a different grammatical form of bidding stick with their title. Their name grammar form when being refer to outside the title could differ leading to ambiguity.

its seems like "the bidding stick form" might be how some are referred to as. it does make sense though for Budstikke. these are often local papers and seeming dont have another newspaper with the same kind of name for their respective area.

Reguardless of everything, purely on a name bases with Budstikke containing titles should have disambiguation fixes

Re: Also I might be inaccessible for 2 days also if you could wait before forming destructive consensus in my absence. (back got rescheduled) I shouldn't even be talking now with my work, my apologies. (I had to add) [Sorry for long, I right long regardless of mental state and not meant be disruptive like mad edit warriors or argumentative, I like to spill out my ideas straight from my head, its just how I am, many times that turns into many errors :p.] JamesEMonroe (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as it stands, the article is stuck half way between being an article and a dab. Probably the best approach is to merge any factual information about the origin of the term to Bidding stick#Newspapers, and cut this dab page down to a simple list of blue-links of the Norwegian newspapers with no additional text. The reason is that a dab page is only there to help readers find the right article when there are several with similar names. A reasonable analogy can be found at The_Times_(disambiguation), which doesn't discuss why newspapers get called "Times" but does list an awful lot of newspapers that a reader might conceivably be looking for. Elemimele (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree.

  for it being an article would be a big undertaking, technically the stubs are of mostly little substance that most linked articles could actually be merged, Though 1 or two might be of more importance and notability. but certainly some of them are questionable for notability and content amount. but it would help with size and difficulty to research. I think is could find info on why articles where made and how the trend started. having it as an article does reduce its capacity a bit to quickly see its ambiguity. Theres is information with this that could be explored that cant be with a dob too. Article though runs the risk entire newspapers (or links to them) being deleted for conciseness that dob doesn't have.

  for dob, I don't see why the other links couldn't be showed that aren't under the Norwegian section. I'm not saying keep the sections how they are, but the accessibility of the links in some capacity on the page.

  I agree that it does need to be cut down information wise and simplified, keeping its name help how its sourced like in bidding stick article. I think dates and location helps to show they are infact different though for text by link, but it doesn't require alot (plus it might lead them to hat they are looking for because there are mostly local newspapers

  I don't know if past names should be shown though also

  Keeping the name does help in a lot of ways and doesn't isolate it to being Norwegian. it could be changed to bidding stick (newpapers) and bidding stick (tool) or something.

  A simple list helps to quickly differentiate and compare, and see the ambiguity (and page purpose) right away JamesEMonroe (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. First, even if disambiguation is warranted, this is a bad title. The title implies that there is a primary topic for Bidding stick newspapers, which there is not. And even then, none of the entries would be ambiguous with the plural form in any case. And it is unclear whether any of the newspapers are commonly known in English by the translated titles. There might possibly be a case for a disambiguation page at Budstikke or Budstikke (disambiguation), but the present title is not appropriate at all. The suggestion to merge this content into Bidding stick#Newspapers should also be considered. older ≠ wiser 12:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I Agree. Although I don't see it as to much of an issue personally of bidding sticks being as a title relating to it even though it isn't used. maybe Bidding Stick (newspaper). Budstikke (disambiguation) could work as there is only one article that isnt apart of Budstikke, though as I said it doesn't allow room for its usage in other Scandinavian countries and norway centric and less referenceable, for its usage of bidding stick. but even with that it might be fine JamesEMonroe (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I should have said: yes, if this dab is kept (if we need one for "budstikke", it needs to change name. I'm not sure how many people go looking for Norwegian newspapers. Elemimele (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I know Budstikka can be more notable as its a controversial right wing one, there's multiple tabloids on them, even research articles specifically on them. then there's another one that is referenced on the web a lot but doesn't seem too popular on Wikipedia. JamesEMonroe (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Bidding stick All information in this article could be summarized and merging into the main article. Angryapathy (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Looking at the definition of bidding sticks Wikipedia page does possibly suggest there maybe non newspaper versions of these words or word versions we don't know, I'm not well versed in Wikipedia searching for this nor Scandinavia entirely to find if something else exists that could be in the dob. but also possibly not JamesEMonroe (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: if we delete, the list of newspapers should probably be moved to Bidding stick since it currently links here for that purpose Ivey (talk - contribs) 17:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The newspapers are not related to eachother in any way, shape or form. Geschichte (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]