Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 15

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

List of state media by country (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)

Since we have Category:State media - i think this list is not needed. Its difficult to maintain or verify accuracy. Category should be the source of truth. Cinaroot (talk) 23:34, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, Television, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge to List of public broadcasters by country. While there is a hat note explaining both lists are not the same, the inclusion criteria distinction is fuzzy and not applied at all. For several countries, the same broadcasters are included in both lists, which would not happen, in theory, if the hat note was accurate. They are supposed to be mutually exclusive inclusion criteria, and they are not. MarioGom (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  redirect to where ? Cinaroot (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  state media list is different from public broadcasters list. it cannot be redirected or merged there Cinaroot (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See my rationale. This article claims they are different. But they list the same media outlets. It's effectively a POV fork. MarioGom (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That being said, if there is no consensus for redirect/merge, I'd be fine with deletion. MarioGom (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  yah, a media shouldn't be in both. people keep adding to this. i have no idea if its true. thats why - we cannot maintain such a list. List of public broadcasters by country is written more like a article. so im fine keeping that. Cinaroot (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @MarioGom can you change your vote to either keep or delete. like i noted below - Radio Rwanda, Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation, Kalaallit Nunaata Radioa etc.. are included in this list. However - in the article they are all identified as public broadcaster. This is why - im saying we cannot maintain this list. its a mix of state media and public broadcaster. Cinaroot (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No. My first option is redirect/merge, and second option delete. MarioGom (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That happened after a mass merge by @Cinaroot (I had been keeping the lists non-redundant) but just went back in and cleaned up List of public broadcasters by country so there should not be any duplication Superb Owl (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i just moved whats in Public broadcasting to List of public broadcasters by country Cinaroot (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The scope of the article is also dubious. It lists a number of authoritarian countries that have no independent media but has provided only a few names for "state media". NavjotSR (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not sure I understand your point exactly but am curious to better understand your thoughts Superb Owl (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - One of the advantages of lists (as spelled out on WP:BEFORECAT) is that they allow us to organize by topics like by Country (as this list is). Because state media is very much country-driven, it seems to be the best format barring some way to render categories by country. The list article seems to be more popular (gets ~10x the number of pageviews) and has been maintained much better than the categories though I have been cleaning those up as well. Superb Owl (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I still support deletion.

  The concept of “state media” is too broad and often disputed. Without a clearly defined and consistently applied inclusion criterion—whether it’s government funding, editorial control, legal status, or degree of independence—the list becomes subjective and unreliable. It invites confusion, duplication, and personal opinion.

  Cinaroot (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Radio Rwanda is in state media list - but in the article it says its a public broadcaster.

  Same for Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation - I PICKED THESE TWO AT RANDOM

  Please just delete it. I'm not sure - if this is being watched by enough editors. People will continue to add wrong media to this list. Cinaroot (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Cinaroot: Please, see WP:BLUDGEON. MarioGom (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BEFORECAT. - Amigao (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Article is not accurate. please see my above and below comments. Cinaroot (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Radio Rwanda, Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation, Kalaallit Nunaata Radioa etc.. are included in this list. However - in the article they are all identified as public broadcaster.

Katy Perry Collections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional article Isla🏳️‍⚧ 23:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, United States of America, and California. Isla🏳️‍⚧ 23:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep - the article is notable enough, but I agree, the promotional content should be removed, and the article should be cleaned up. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The People article is a RS. Billboard does shoe reviews apparently [1], but this is also a solid source [2]. Should be good for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: in terms of WP:NPRODUCT, it seems borderline from what I checked so far. However, the 2019 international coverage of the blackface controversy ([3][4][5][6]) has become something of academic interest beyond the breaking news cycle. See, for example, [7][8]). The products have been reviewed by Billboard [9]. --MarioGom (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not sure how this this and this were missed in a WP:BEFORE. And yes, the controversy was well-documented, including in textbook cited in the vote above, and this book. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Katy Perry #Other ventures Non notable company owned by notable singer and WP:Cheap. Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Improvement - The article about Katy Perry Collections needs to be improved and I don't have time to improve it. Could either of Mariogom, CMNall, or Oaktreeb please improve on it. -- EclipseExpress (talk) 2:55, May 16, 2025 (UTC)

Keep. I don’t find any of the article to be promotional in nature, and the subject is notable per GNG. ZachH007 (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Myriospora elegans (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 species was not validly published (confirmed on both Index Fungorum and MycoBank) and should not have been created to begin with; I believe it was made in an attempt by a now-banned editor to bluelink all of the taxon names (valid or not) on the monstrous dab page C._elegans_(disambiguation). It has no literature presence, so doesn't qualify for a notability bypass (search in quotes recommended because "elegans" is a common epithet). Esculenta (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment MycoBank's record for Myriospora elegans Hepp (1860) says the current name is Biatora elegans Zwackh (1850) but the MycoBank record for B. elegans Zwackh say that name is also invalid, while listing as synonyms some other elegans combinations attributed to "Hepp ex A. Massal. (1860)" including Chiliospora elegans. GBIF's M. elegans Hepp record was "deleted" in 2021, but says it is a synonym of of Biatoridium monasteriense, and the GBIF record for B. monasteriense lists some elegans combinations attributed to A.Massal, including Chiliospora elegans. Index Fungorum has a record for Chiliospora elegans Hepp ex A. Massal. "Hepp ex A. Massal" is effectively no different than "A.Massal". I think the Myriospora elegans article could be deleted, but I'm not sure about deleting the Chiliospora elegans redirect that drove the creation of the M. elegans article. Plantdrew (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This modern source (doi:10.3897/mycokeys.31.23658) corroborates the synonymy of Chiliospora elegans with Biatoridium monasteriense, so I created this page for that redirect to point to. Esculenta (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete following up on my Comment above since this has been relisted. With Chiliospora elegans now having a new target, Myriospora elegans can be deleted per nom. Plantdrew (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehzeb Chowdhury (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)

Other than the sheer obnoxiousness of this article (which is just one long advert about why the subject is the most awesome and interesting man in the world), I'm not totally convinced it meets the notability criteria. Reasons below:

• Many of the sources are just passing mentions, and they aren't always high quality (e.g. a casting website is used to support the claim he is an actor/filmmaker)
• A previous editor has marked the article as relying too heavily on sources that may be closely related to the subject. I happen to agree, and the generally sycophantic nature of these articles is off-putting and undermines the case for notability (given his father is a prominent journalist, I wonder if he has some connections with The Daily Star, which is one of the main sources)
• The big notability claim is his association with MABMAT, and while that is notable, I'm not sure it justifies Chowdhury having an article to himself. Furthermore, this article seems to credit Chowdhury as the sole inventor, whereas The Times was more balanced, indicating he led a team at Durham University that developed it [10]
• As a researcher he has a low h-index [11]
• An excessive number of claims rely on primary sources. A few claims aren't even verified (e.g. that he worked for Goal.com as a correspondent) Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, Law, Social science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (creator) The nomination is strictly reliant on issues regarding the article. Issues regarding an article can be raised in its talk page or Wikiprojects' talk pages (I do agree it needs some touch, and I'm willing to do them once able, but that's irrelevant to an article's notability).
  Just because an article is not up to the mark on some aspects, it does not become non-notable. Many of the sources are just passing mentions- not every source of an article need to be of high quality or of depth. An article fo shizz will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims.
  There exist several sources (in Bengali as well) in and out of the article that definitely speak volume for this person's notability. X (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 'An article fo shizz will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims' – Sure, but if we're establishing general notability it is best to have more than passing mentions, because lots of people are sometimes contacted by the media to provide comment for stories. I also have concerns about the promotional nature of some of the Bangladeshi sources (e.g. this one), which read like adulatory press releases. Leonstojka (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article has enough RS about the subject (Wired, Digital trends, HuffPost, The Times) to pass WP:NBIO. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are more features that are not cited in the article as well, such as this from Ice Today. There's coverage in Bengali too, with TV appearances, features in reputed mags such as The Diplomat and Newsweek where he is introduced as an expert. Overall, why'd a non-notable person get recurrent coverage throughout the years from big pubs. X (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Xoak is right. Somajyoti ✉ 20:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability is clear by the sources. Mifflefunt 03:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Striking !vote of blocked account who was here just to spam porn sites. MarioGom (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Which sources establish notability under WP:GNG? Is it this one from Business Standard? what else? I see many articles written by the subject, but I don't see reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article has refs from Wired, Digital trends, HuffPost and The Times, which are independent RS. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the articles in The Times and Wired use Chowdhury as a source (as in "Chowdhury says", "he believes", "he told", "according to him"). What he says is not independent of him. Similarly, Digital Trends is an interview with him, so not independent of him. If they consulted any other sources, they don't say so. HuffPost does not contain significant coverage of him. None of these four do anything to help establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Worldbruce, These 4 aren't the only sources. Many sources exist about this individual (see the aforementioned points). A non-notable person does not get recurrent media coverage throughout the years (it may well be interviews, passing mentions, anything; he does have sig in-depth cov as well for the record). X (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Attempt at making a source assessment table. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Ice Today https://icetoday.net/2024/03/building-blockbusters/	~ Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this.	700 words about subject	~ Partial
Business Standard https://www.tbsnews.net/features/pursuit/he-modernised-crime-scene-investigation-making-movies-and-music-along-way-487946	~ Not sure how to rate independence: asked in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-ActivelyDisinterested-20250516114100-PacificDepths-20250516083000	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
Daily Star https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/mehzeb-chowdhury-pioneer-criminology-savant-films-3147896	~ Some interview quotes. Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
Prothom Alo https://www.prothomalo.com/lifestyle/5uuxkcz9qu	~ Some interview quotes. Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
The Diplomat https://thediplomat.com/2024/08/can-the-bangladesh-police-recover/	Mostly an interview, primary source material	~ unknown	One sentence description of subject	✘ No
Newsweek https://www.newsweek.com/body-farms-decomposing-bodies-forensic-science-murder-1798397	Mostly an interview, primary source material	~ Treat case by case basis per WP:NEWSWEEK	one sentence description and quote	✘ No
Jamuna TV Plus Interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8x8r90VZE4	Interview: Primary source	~		✘ No
Wired https://www.wired.com/story/crime-scene-technology/	Interview		Little information about the subject	✘ No
The Times: "Robots will create virtual crime scenes for juries"	Primary source		One sentence about the subject	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• @PacificDepths Simply discarding sources labeled as "interviews" is flawed. These are features that include quotations and interview segments, as features inherently contain such elements. You cannot broadly dismiss them by merely labeling them as interviews. Claiming they "feel promotional" is your subjective opinion (these features have proper bylines and are not promo pieces, if so, they'd have been designated as such from these reputed pubs). Overall, I strongly disagree with this source analysis table. Additionally, several Bengali news sources, TV appearances, and passing mentions in reputable publications recognize him as a notable person or expert. Collectively, these demonstrate his notability. GNG is fo shizzle met here. X (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• And by the way, common sense should prevail. The newsweek and diplomat sources were mentioned to demonstrate a point that this person also gets called out for their expert opinion, assessing and labeling these 2 as "One sentence description of subject" is utterly asinine, like of course these are passing mentions. And as I stated earlier, not every source of an article need to be entirely about the subject or of depth. An article will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims. X (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've re-ordered the sources and edited some. I'm not sure how to judge Business Standard, Daily Star, ICE Today. I don't think The Times should demonstrate notability. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @PacificDepths, and those who are unfamiliar, TBS, DS, Prothom Alo, Ice Today, these all are reputed and generally deemed reliable publications. X (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musfiq Mannan Choudhury (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)

Mostly passing mentions in sources and he isn't a highly-cited researcher ([12]). It does note he is a vice-chancellor of a university, but this institution doesn't seem particularly noteworthy or reputable (although perhaps someone who knows more about the regulation of higher ed. in Bangladesh can correct me) Leonstojka (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh. Leonstojka (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is daddy (Abdul Mannan Choudhury) who is the vice-chancellor. The article was created in good faith, but has subsequently attracted unwelcome editing from single purpose accounts that appear to have a close connection to him. If the article is kept, it will need watchers. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: He is not a highly-cited researcher, but after reading the article, it seems it passed GNG because he has coverage in Bangladeshi newspapers. Somajyoti ✉ 20:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I had a look at the Bangladeshi coverage (Daily Star, Daily Sun etc) before making the nomination and it was generally routine announcements and brief mentions. However, there was a story published today where the article subject has a more significant role; whether this is enough to justify preserving the article, or if the info should instead be entered elsewhere, I'll leave for others to determine. I imagine this discussion will probably get relisted. Leonstojka (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Hiestand (actor) (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)

Prolific actor, but no major roles as far as I can see, so he fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. He was in some major films, such as The Pride of the Yankees and The Day the Earth Stood Still, but uncredited, as he was in most of his filmography. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Theatre, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He is mentioned in a lot of Wikipedia articles]. Maybe there are some refs there that mention him? He seems to have been the announcer for a lot of radio shows in addition to his film/TV roles. I think he needs more investigation before deleting. See this, this, and this. Perhaps someone can search Newspapers.com? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - I just inserted the link to the : "AFI|Catalog". catalog.afi.com. Retrieved 16 May 2025. in the film section. This verifies 50 titles in Filmography that he actually made. That was easy to find, and John Hiestand appears to have been a prolific actor. Perhaps what throws people off is that in these older films, for all the actors, and are easy to overlook. In the case of Hiestand, his roles seemed to be as a radio announcer or commentator. Announcers/commentators were propelling the story lines, so they are vital in those old films. Someone else needs to find television or radio sourcing. Also, please click on Find Sources links at the bottom of the above deletion notice. Those will take you to more sourcing. There is no reason to delete this article. It just needs someone to search a little and add the sourcing. — Maile (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal. Find sources shows he got passing mentions only, almost always for being a cast member; the most significant snippet seems to be in the book Animated Personalities, which says he pretended to be Walt Disney when Disney couldn't be there. "credits did not necessarily appear on screen" = uncredited, which means an actor didn't have a significant role. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have spent the better part of the day researching on this individual. He is notable and his career spanned decades through screen, television and radio. And, yes, he did perform with the Kay Kyser band. I have done some of the sourcing, but it's now up to others. Anyone who wants to know more, is welcome to pick up the research and post it here. — Maile (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prescott Currier (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)

He was a World War II cryptography lieutenant, but I see no substantiation for the unsourced claim that he "played a major role in the Cryptanalysis of the Enigma". There are passing mentions, which fail to satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Maine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (soft) with the hope that eventually, sources might be declassified and show he's notable. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In addition to the sources cited in the article, which are not fully utilised, I found more information about him here which provides a list of more sources, and here. If the article is kept I will use these to expand it and add his portrait. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the article needs work, references found give evidence of notability: (1) The NSA calls him a "giant" in cryptography; (2) He was one of 4 Americans who went to Bletchley Park to help with decrypting the Enigma. References to both are now in the article. There are likely more. While I may not have time to do the work, @Hawkeye7 has offered to do the work. — ERcheck (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the sources discussed until now show notability. MarioGom (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twirling Toadstool (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 coverage in RS PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable theme park ride. No coverage i can find Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Alton Towers#Main Past Attractions – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirection or Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I agree with @Svartner that this can be redirected to the alton towers page. I will add some info from this article to the table but the ride is not independently notable. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Alton Towers: No reason to have an article by it's own. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Mersey Pirate (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)

You can't have it both way if this page goes which at least has a few ref https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Taylor_Swift&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tricky_(TV_series)_(2nd_nomination) then this page along with a few others have to go aswell since it has NO proper REF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 15:50, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nominator, please read WP:BEFORE. Have added three references. If other editors do not agree this article meets WP:GNG then I suggest merge or redirect to List_of_television_programmes_broadcast_by_ITV. Orange sticker (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it has reliable third person sources to justify a Wikipedia article. If other editors disagree it should be merged to List_of_television_programmes_broadcast_by_ITV.Dwanyewest (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elissa_Shevinsky (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)

Notability has not been established for this person. Page was previously nominated for deletion Barrettsprivateers (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Computing, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the previous AfD discussion was closed in 2013, so that was a while back. There is news coverage on Shevinsky that post-dates the previous discussion. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Voting for delete due to lack of notability. Research indicates that the subject does not have a reputation amongst her peers— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrettsprivateers (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your nomination is already a vote. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have done a bit of tidying up and removed the poorly-cited, resume-like items to focus on news coverage of Shevinsky. The best three sources (all in the article) are a 2014 New York Times article [13], and 2015 CNN article [14], and her coverage in a 2014 book by Dan Shapiro [15]. In addition, she has been widely quoted in the news talking about sexism in the tech industry (see examples in the article). DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is a bit better written after that clean up, but she is still not notable by WP:GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as passes GNG with WP:SIGCOV in independent WP:RS's mentioned by DaffodilOcean and also phys.org [16]. She may also pass WP:AUTHOR #3 for her book Lean Out. Nnev66 (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking phys.org reference as I don't think it counts as a reliable source. However, keeping my !vote the same given three strong sources previously identified and three reviews for Lean Out. Nnev66 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Still not notable by WP:GNG RocketDwiki (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hard to analyze a negative. Notability has not been established. Therefore my comment of delete is pretty much all that is required in a vote. RocketDwiki (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Shapiro book section may not be completely independent, author is in the same niche as subject (tech startup CEOs who are frequently quoted about misogyny in the tech space) - guessing that's a pretty small world. See his blog post about their interview and article they were quoted in together. But the NYT piece is clearly sigcov, CNN is decent if a bit less in-depth, and her book has at least 3 reviews in RS. Put altogether subject seems at least weakly notable. Zzz plant (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree that the NYT piece, the CNN piece, and the reviews for her book are sufficient to establish notability. Her book and her work are also mentioned in at least half a dozen academic books and journal articles, e.g. [17] [18]. At worst, this should be redirected to Lean Out: The Struggle for Gender Equality in Tech and Start-up Culture as an ATD. MCE89 (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not establish to be notable under WP:GNG. Have also discussed with cyber experts and she is not known to them.Fordyhall (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Talking with outside experts is original research, which is not acceptable at Wikipedia (see WP:OR). I also find it interesting that you found a discussion at Articles for Deletion on your second edit. Have you been editing Wikipedia with another username? DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment just noting here that only one of the four nominators has put forward a reason for deletion consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Even the one who said they thought the article didn't meet WP:GNG guidelines didn't address the three sources DaffodilOcean put forward for notability in their Keep !vote above. Zzz plant questions whether the book is independent because the author and subject are in the same smallish field but also !voted Keep. I'll expand here on the three book reviews for Lean Out. Two of them also have coverage of the subject: [19], [20] and the other is a comprehensive review: [21]. With all of these sources taken together this article should clear GNG. I'm willing to accept the subject is not a cybersecurity expert, but this is not relevant for this discussion. Nnev66 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StartKey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article regards an initiative that never progressed beyond initial press. The subject is not notable. — Greentryst ^T_C 23:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Similar to the nominator, I have only been able to find announcements about the initial collaboration between Sandisk and Microsoft. All coverage is routine and does not make for a notable prototype or product. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhartha Cricket Stadium (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 redirect without improvement (along with a personal attack). Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a state level sports stadium in the US would this deletion nomination ever have been put forward? Let's try and counter - not reinforce - Wikipedia's bias problems. Atrapalhado (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is a perfectly valid article that should not have been put forward for deletion (if you get your kicks deleting articles people have worked hard on, at least focus on the many thousands of unnecessary articles on US sports and popular culture, rather than seeking to scrap valid articles from non western/ non Anglosphere country topics which are inevitably harder to source but no less notable).

Anyway, this is clearly a major regional cricket ground in Nepal. Sources make clear it's one of the grounds for the major cricket tournament in the country. The article is substantially developed. Yes it needs more sources but the source cited is independent and provides good material. If our friend who put this forward for deletion wanted to do something more useful with their time, he/she could readily add additional sources from independent professional cricketing sites which can be readily found on Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrapalhado (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Smith (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 script-writer, fails WP:BIO

(Note: "Evil Gal Productions", according to the Wayback Machine, was Mere's personal blog website) ApexParagon (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Rhode Island, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Meek (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 does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. All I could find were passing mentions such as [[22]]. Let'srun (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are not enough RSes to justify inclusion. Let me know if other sources are found. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of snack foods by country (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 is unnecessary and poorly written SapphicVibes (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

btw if I messed this up please be kind this is literally the first thing i've ever done on Wikipedia and i'm trying my very best SapphicVibes (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination, due to someone making the article into a redirect. - SapphicVibes (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[8:39 PM] SapphicVibes (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article that is the subject of this nomination is not and has never been a redirect, as best I can tell. (Shortly before this nomination was started, List of brand name snack foods was blanked, redirected, and partially merged into this list, which may be what SapphicVibes is referring to.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid deletion rationale was given. The article seems just fine, even if it's incomplete. MarioGom (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTCRIT. "Snack food" is inherently vague and subjective. Also, while some entries may be quite well associated with a specific country, many are going to be associated with multiple, sometimes very controversially so. And if you don't think that sounds likely, go weep at the history of the Momo (food) article, which is under CTOP restrictions for crissakes. Also delete as a WP:CFORK/WP:CROSSCAT of the main List of snack foods. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of snack foods. I agree with 35.139.154.158's concerns that the lists duplicate each other and that sorting by country is unideal. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have notified Talk:List of snack foods. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures (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 is a procedural nomination on behalf of 35.139.154.158 (talk) who requested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AFD request - Terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures that this article be nominated for deletion. The supplied rationale is:

WP:CFORK of Tactics of terrorism. Collection of this as a distinct topic seems to be due to a single author, C. Flaherty, which not so coincidentally is rather similar to the username of this article's creator and primary contributor.

I am not offering an opinion at this time beyond noting the creator was user:CFlaherty, who has not edited since 2021. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This reminds me of a similar phenomenon for the Airport city and Aerotropolis and John D. Kasarda articles (see comments on the Talk pages of those articles). See also WP:NEOLOGISM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Closing admin, if you delete this article, please remember to delete Tactics, techniques, and procedures and Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, both of which redirect here. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tactics of terrorism. I don't think this article supports that this is an "essential concept" in counterterrorism but it does establish that this is a sometimes used synonym/subtopic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In perusing the sources a few do use this term but they seem to be published by the law enforcement agency where the author works, or are ebooks by think tanks that don't have Wikipedia articles. Googling though, the term is used fairly heavilly in law enforcement circles and better soruces pop right out. "Terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures" seems to be a specific term used in reliable sources in this field. Addressing the nominator's rationale, the authorship of the Wikipedia article in and of itself is not a reason for deletion. Self-promotion is a red flag for notability issues, but doesn't prove them by itself. I'd be okay with a merge/redirect to Tactics of terrorism if the sourcing for this longer term isn't deemed sufficient. --Here2rewrite (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. TTPs are a well-established concept and the writeup is very decent. Judging by the title one might be concerned there would be overlap, yet judging by the actual content this isn't the case. gidonb (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. gidonb (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AN/MPN-14K Mobile Ground Approach System (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 AN/MPN-14K is a modified AN/MPN-14 which is fully described in the article AN/MPN. There is a wikilink to the -14K article within the AN/MPN article which is wholly unnecessary since the -14K article does not meet general notability and the -14K article has no citations at all. I recommend the -14K article be deleted (merge unnecessary). — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 20:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Technology, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rachmat Harsono (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)

Refs are run of the mill puff pieces, PR and business news. No indication of signifiance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 20:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Found another independent reference, but the article definitely needs some cleanup. It's worth giving it some time to see if anyone else might dig something up. If that isn't possible, deletion might make sense at that point. The article on the Bahasa Wikipedia does not appear to be much different.[23] Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea. That refs is a profile. Its not a reliable source. Its more PR and more confirmation that he is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koichi Sasada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article about a programmer and academic has been tagged with notability concerns since 2014. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added three external links, but these don't help with notability (two interviews and a blog post with a translation of work by Sasada). I may be missing sources in Japanese, but with what I have found I don't think he meets WP:NACADEMIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Redirect to Heroku is a possibility. Tacyarg (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Technology, Computing, Japan, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:NPROF and I dont see enough in-depth coverage to justify notability as a Ruby developer per WP:GNG. --hroest 20:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blanco, Tulare County, California (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:NPLACE, I did a WP:BEFORE search, and did not find significant coverage, or any mentions of a Blanco in Tulare County (except on topos). From above, this area seems to be only be a farm. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Older topos show this was the site of a passing siding on the Santa Fe line. Before the dairy complex was built around 2000, there was just nothing here. Mangoe (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As an unincorporated location WP:NPLACE, notability is established through WP:GNG. I can't find any reliable sources giving significant coverage. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Le Chi Thuc (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)

Unsourced article. It seems like I'm reading a self promotion article. I did a quick WP:BEFORE but can't find anything about this person.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States, Vietnam, and Politics.
• 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added a few sources, though I'm definitely leaning delete. I wouldn't really consider either of them SIGCOV, just a few mentions to prove he is what it says he is, but they're both by the same author and I can't find much else on him. Réunion! 18:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with caveat I did my usual source search and I couldn't find anything good ...in English. There were several non-English sources that I could not read. If someone who can read in Vietnamese would take a look at Google Scholar, they might find something suitable. Are we sure "Le Chi Thuc" is the correct anglicized spelling of the subject's name? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Kumar (mountaineer) (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:NBIO, created using WP:LLM with only one source that is PRIMARY (self-published). All others are mostly WP:TIMESOFINDIA that has no url/links. Agent 007 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Bihar. Agent 007 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Beyond the fact that this seems pretty likely AI-written, it is also created by a blocked user, and it is an orphan. Réunion! 18:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable IAS officer, couldn't find anything in my BEFORE to satisfy GNG or ANYBIO. I have similar concerns about the listed sources being AI generated and being mis-represented (which is what lead to the author's ban, more on that) but just want to clarify of the above !vote that the article was not created in violation of a block or ban, and being an orphan can be remedied and not a valid reason for deletion. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh yes, that's true, I forgot to mention that it also pretty obviously fails WP:GNG. Réunion! 15:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dang, reading the other comments further damn this case for deletion. It would fail WP:GNG under normal circumstances but the other circumstances around it further bolster deletion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian–Kurdish conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is a wp:nor mess. Some of its content is lifted from articles that I wrote, but I have seen no evidence that the article topic exists. It makes about as much sense as an article about the "Asian - African conflict" throughout North America from 1700 to present. For most of history there have been more conflicts between different Assyrians and Kurds and it still doesn't make sense to consider either of them a cohesive group that is involved in an armed conflict. (t · c) buidhe 16:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My idea was to move this page to Assyrian–Kurdish relations as we already have many pages describing bilateral relations, but I got pushback and was reverted. I will also note that an older version of the page almost seems to be about a different topic entirely - and one presented coherently - so my (tenuous) vote is to Keep and revert to version as of 3 May 2025. Koopinator (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bilateral relations articles are about relations between two state or state like entities, not between different ethnic groups that don't have an institution representing them. I am still skeptical about that framing as well as the "land dispute" one, which I don't think it's supported by the cited sources. The characterization that there is a land dispute between the Kurdish and Assyrian people or between Assyrians and the KRG (as opposed to individual Assyrians and Kurds) is disputed. But the chosen article title makes it seem like a fact. (t · c) buidhe 15:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be be better to have an article about land usurpation in Iraq, which leaves more room for covering non ethnic causes because it lacks the biased framing that presumes a conclusion. (t · c) buidhe 15:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vwakpor Efuetanu (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)

Spammy bio for a non-notable Nigerian businessperson. The sources are promotional fluff (a visionary leader using technology and sustainable energy solutions to uplift underserved African communities... setting a precedent for innovation and progress across the continent is par for the course [24], [25]). Other sources are just WP:PRIMARYSOURCES based on the subject's own words about himself ([26], [27], [28]); regurgiated press releases ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]); straight-up sponsored content ([37]); tabloid coverage ([38]); or his own website ([39]). His supposed "honorary doctorate" is from an institution that does not appear to grant degrees at all and should not be considered a significant award for purposes of WP:ANYBIO#1. All told, I don't see a WP:GNG or WP:NBIO pass here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above

DankPedia (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: While I understand the concerns raised, there are several points worth clarifying:

1. Notability (WP:GNG/WP:NBIO): Vwakpor Efuetanu has received substantial coverage in numerous independent, reliable sources across Nigeria’s top-tier media. Outlets such as Tribune Online, Leadership, The Nation, The Guardian Nigeria, and Vanguard have all published extended profiles or interviews. These publications are not merely blogs or PR reposts; many are mainstream national outlets with editorial oversight.

2. Depth of Coverage: The articles in Tribune and Leadership go beyond passing mentions. For example, this piece discusses Efuetanu’s partnerships with HP, Beats by Dre, and Nexford University, and his AI empowerment efforts in Edo State. These are not trivial activities, and they have received regional and national recognition.

3. Independence of Sources: While some sources may contain promotional language (as is common in coverage of entrepreneurs), this does not invalidate the independence of coverage. Many pieces were written by journalists, not submitted press releases, and they include third-party analysis of impact and reach.

4. Significance of Achievements: The subject’s work in AI education, youth empowerment (over 30,000 trained individuals), and partnerships with state governments (e.g., Edo State Government) show a demonstrable impact in a sector (AI and renewable energy) that is recognized as both emerging and of global relevance. These accomplishments are covered in national outlets, indicating the individual’s notability under WP:NBIO #2 (significant coverage of professional impact).

5. Honorary Degree – While the awarding institution (CIPRMP Ghana) may not be globally ranked, it is commonly cited in Nigerian media, and such honorary recognitions are frequently mentioned in bios of other notable figures. That alone is not the basis for notability, but it is part of the broader picture of public recognition.

6. Primary Sources / Website: The subject’s website is used only as a supplementary source for factual background and not as evidence of notability. The article itself can and should rely primarily on independent secondary sources, which are available and already cited.

I welcome efforts to further improve the article’s neutrality and tone, and agree that removing any promotional language or overly close paraphrasing is essential. However, deletion is not necessary. The subject clearly passes WP:GNG and likely WP:NBIO based on multiple independent, reliable sources with significant coverage.

Covnantay (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this reply is CLEARLY written with WP:LLM. Réunion! 18:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Dclemens1971. Réunion! 18:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daris Đezić (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. Second-tier footballer with only database entries cited. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing better than his name mentioned in lists of players; no in-depth coverage anywhere. — Moriwen (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. — Moriwen (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I looked at German Wikipedia as this footballer was born in Austria, but it's just an unsourced stub. Given that he is yet to make his professional debut, I don't see the article as a potential draft. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Thiel (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 only source for this football player is a bio from his club. I was unable to find any independent sources, including on the wikipedia library. It's possible there's something older and non-digitized that I'm missing, but I've had no luck at all. — Moriwen (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. — Moriwen (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The article is about an Australian rules footballer. Svartner (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've found 1 article on Newsbank, but Australian online coverage from the 1980s is extremely poor, and even recent Adelaide papers are behind paywalls. Absolutely guaranteed that there is a heap of coverage offline of a ten year player, twice winning the premiership, and dying young. The-Pope (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Bianchini (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 cannot find any evidence that this individual passes any of the criteria of WP:NARTIST, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC, or WP:GNG. (If you find anything indicating otherwise, please ping me.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, and France. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above DankPedia (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Brestin (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. Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prohibits unilateral return top Draft. WP:ROTM author. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Christianity, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois, Missouri, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the references meet WP:RS standards and at least half are just profiles on non-independent sites. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I've found a couple independent sources covering Brestin's work, namely, a 2010 review of her book in the journal Death Studies; a 2019 Publishers Weekly book review; and a bit of analysis of her 2002 book by Kathaleen Amende in Desire and the Divine: Feminine Identity in White Southern Women's Writing (Louisiana State University Press). There's also an interview with Today's Christian Woman magazine she did alongside a co-author, though I'm not sure how much that factors into WP:NAUTHOR. These sources have been added to the article. Best, Bridget (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Neiszner (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 about a hockey player, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for hockey players. The leagues he played in, the American Hockey League and the ECHL, are specifically listed in WP:NHOCKEY as conferring notability only if the player "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer, first-team all-star)" -- but there's no claim being made here that he ever achieved any such thing in either league, and he hasn't been shown to pass WP:GNG either as the article is referenced entirely to content self-published by the teams he has played or worked for rather than any evidence of independent coverage in third-party media sources.
The article has, additionally, spent 18 full months with WP:BLP-violating nonsense like "He is currently an ambulance driver in Alberta. He once smiled, but really didn't like it. Chris also had the pleasure of providing the Rebels staff with water in their mouths." in it until I found and poleaxed it just now, which isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself but does speak to how many responsible editors have actually seen the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without much more and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Whenever I see an AfD on a article on an obscure hockey player such as this, I tend to flicker my gaze to the top of the screen to see if Dolovis -- an editor eventually community-banned from new article creation, and responsible for creating thousands of articles on NN subjects, often in direct defiance of notability guidelines -- was the perp. Bingo! In any event, there's never been any iteration of NHOCKEY under which this player, whose career was multiple rungs below top flight, has been considered presumptively notable. Ravenswing 12:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The Red Deer Advocate gave extensive SIGCOV of him, e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Versions of the above links that will open through Wikipedia Library: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • Also this story from the Las Vegas Review-Journal. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are four significant article about him provided above. 1 4 5 6. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage in the home market of the team he played for isn't sufficient in and of itself to give a minor-league hockey player a GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY. We'd have to see nationalizing coverage, not just the Red Deer Advocate alone. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

coverage isn't sufficient ... [for a] GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY – ?? NHOCKEY is an inclusionary criterion, not an exlusionary one (and a broken one at that -- if you meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG; if you do not meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG). The only thing that matters is whether he meets GNG, and national coverage is not necessary for that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a distinction between "inclusionary" and "exclusionary" SNGs. GNG does not just count up the number of media hits and keep anybody who's surpassed an arbitrary number, without considering the context in which the media hits exist — as I've said more than once, if GNG just concerned itself with the number of sources a person had, and didn't care about whether the context of what the person was getting covered for was actually of any broad or sustained public interest or not, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's former neighbour who once got a blip of media coverage for finding a pig in her front yard. (Hell, if all GNG cared about was the number of media hits that could be found, and didn't measure for whether the context of what those hits existed for passed any notability criteria or not, then I would even be able to claim that I qualified for an article.) So media coverage doesn't just have to hit some arbitrary number of clippings, and also has to verify passage of one or more notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sport-specific sub criteria is just leftover stuff from before WP:NSPORTS2022 that wasn't participation based (all of the participation criteria was removed). None of the individual sport guidelines have been updated with replacement criteria so we're pretty much just left with skeletonized guidelines that offer unhelpful advice like likely to be notable if they've been inducted into the hall of fame. There's isn't even any guidance currently on football, gridiron football, or baseball. In regards to NHOCKEY, the only NHL guidance mentions first-round draft picks, which is obviously too strict given all of the blue links at 2017 NHL entry draft (and there's never been an overabundance of hockey players anyway). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Right now, it looks like Wayne Gretzky fails NHOCKEY. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He does fail NHOCKEY. I suggest an AfD. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV does not exclude local coverage, and makes no mention of national coverage. Flibirigit (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage isn't excluded from usability, and I never said it was. But local coverage is not necessarily enough to hand a person a GNG-based exemption from normal inclusion criteria all by itself — unelected candidates are not exempted from NPOL just because they can show a handful of local campaign coverage in the local media of the area where they were running without any evidence of broader significance, actors who don't otherwise pass NACTOR's achievement-based criteria are not exempted from them just because they can show a handful of "local aspiring actor gets first bit part in movie" coverage in their hometown media without any evidence of broader significance, high school and junior league athletes are not exempted from the inclusion criteria for their sport just because they can show a handful of hometown local coverage without any evidence of broader significance, local bands are not exempted from having to pass WP:NMUSIC just because they got a few hits of "local band plays local pub" in their local newspaper without any evidence of broader significance, and on and so forth.
If a person is properly established as passing an SNG on an actual inclusion criterion, then we genuinely don't care whether their sourcing is "local" or "national" — but if a person's coverage isn't establishing passage of any specific inclusion criteria, and instead you're trying to argue that they get over GNG purely on the number of media hits that exist in and of itself, then a local vs. national coverage test does come into play, because lots of people can show some evidence of local coverage in contexts that don't pass encyclopedic standards of permanent international significance. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON and WP:WALLOFTEXT may apply here. Flibirigit (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the only coverage were a couple of articles from Neiszer's home town of Craik, Saskatchewan stating that he made it to a WHL team, I'd probably agree that he does not meet GNG. But he has much more extensive coverage from Red Deer, Alberta, which is not his home town (or even his home province) plus significant coverage from Las Vegas, Nevada, which is not even his home country. That's not to mention a lot of insignificant coverage in other newspapers in other ciites. So he actually has not only national coverage, but international coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Red Deer Advocate is a perfectly acceptable source for demonstrating significant coverage for notability, which has no "national coverage" requirement, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal provides an additional source of significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• comment while not really an international outlet, there are at least 6 articles from the Red Deer Advocate here which would count towards notability. However, my problem is that they do not seem to be very in-depth which makes me wonder whether there is enough material to write an interesting article that goes beyond the Hockey stats. --hroest 19:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources seem quite limited and I don't think it passes WP:BASIC. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG with multiple sources of SIGCOV listed above. NSPORT doesn't have any reasonable sport-specific guidance on stuff anymore since WP:NSPORTS2022 so this is all we have to go on. Just following the rules. Can't have it both ways. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer This is due for close or relist today, but I don't see any source review. Could we get a relist to do that properly. My first observation is that 6 of the 7 sources come from the same newspaper, and so these would only count as a single source for purposes of GNG. The links have ot been set up through the Wikipedia library so I will need to do a bit of work to review them, but that is at most one source. The other, the Las Vegas Review, is a report on their return, but is primarily an interview, so the biographical information is not independent, and is primary. I think this needs more work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Source review - Thanks for the relist. I have now looked at the six sources above, and here is my assessment (in conjunction with my earlier comment about the Las Vegas Review source).
  The following are all from the Red Deer Advocate, a local paper for Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. They are mostly from one staff correspondent. One is from an alternate staff correspondent. The page subject is only associated with the Red Deer Rebels. The Red Deer Advocate is owned by Black Press, but coverage of a player on the local team in a local paper is clearly WP:ROUTINE or of questionable independence. To be notable, the player must surely be noticeable beyond the local paper.

• 1 (Meacham, 2001) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. ?
• 2 - Not SIGCOV. N
• 3 (Meacham, 2005) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. Additionally information appears to be obtained via interview, and aspects of this are primary reporting. ?
• 4 (Meacham, 2010) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. ?
• 5 (Rode, 2005) This appears to be a write up of an interview, so the biographical information is not independent. N
• 6 (Meacham, 2003) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. ?

The six sources count together. While some are excluded, there is SIGCOV here in this local paper about the local team. But can they be used for notability? Certainly not on their own. They provide some useable biographical information, but they do not indicate notability. GNG requires multiple sources in any case. If we had national coverage at this level, we would keep, based on the coverage, but as things stand, if this is all we have, we are not yet at GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing in our guidelines suggests that coverage by a "local team in a local newspaper" is of "questionable independence" or necessarily routine. And the Las Vegas article (which is not an interview) is not Red Deer, or even Alberta, or even Canada. So there are multiple sources, and not just national coverage but international coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Very much disagree with the source review above. The Review-Journal is an ~800 word story on him that is not solely an interview. Sirfurboy seems to be stating that any story that has any quotes or such is automatically non-independent, but that is clearly incorrect and including quotes from closely related people is a feature of almost all good sports reporting. Review-Journal is SIGCOV source 1. Then we've got an avalanche of coverage from the Advocate. "Questionable independence"? No, the paper is not owned by the team or anything like that. Being local does not mean non-independent! And there is no requirement that a subject receives national coverage. The Review-Journal has SIGCOV and then the Advocate has SIGCOV. That's multiple sources with SIGCOV, and that meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nearly everything in the Review is indeed from an interview. I missed that 89 words of direct quotation actually come from Glen Gulutzan, his coach, saying:

  Early on he's had some offensive success, but what we can count on him for is the same game every night. That's why he's good for our younger guys. His game doesn't fluctuate every day. It's the same every day.

  "He kills penalties, plays in front of the net on the power play and on 5-on-5 he's defensively responsible. We know every night we can rely on him in tough situations. He's just a well-rounded player, and that's how he has to be to get to the next level.

  Other than that, the only material that is not directly from the subject is that he spent last season in France (signed because of his agent), his offense has improved, he scored 23 points in 26 games, and he is reunited with Justin Taylor. This is primarily an interview with a returning player. Where is he returning to? Las Vegas. And this is the Las Vegas Review. What is not interview is news reporting, city wide but local. Again, if we had any national coverage it would be different, but coverage of who is rejoining a local team is routine, match reporting is primary and interview content is not independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's 260 words of coverage of Neiszner that is not from quotes – that's SIGCOV. There is no requirement that the coverage be non-local. Whether you personally judge it to be "routine" because its of a "returning player" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters, aside from it being reliable and independent (which it is), is whether it is in-depth coverage (SIGCOV), which it is. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're discounting "local" coverage and entire sources because they have some quote material (which is standard sports journalism), then there are a decent amount of NHL players that wouldn't even pass GNG. Would an article on a Philadelphia Flyers player in The Philadelphia Inquirer not count since it's "local"? Only All-Star caliber players and those who have played for 10+ years will have national SIGCOV. I'm not going to "die on the hill" (for lack of a better phrase) for this minor leaguer but I would for an NHL player. Here is an example of a Q&A type interview that wouldn't count towards notability. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Quotes can be valid coverage, especially if they are not from an interview with the subject. Rlendog (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. - see WP:IV. As we want biographical SIGCOV of the player, the quoted information is primary, and cannot be used for SIGCOV. What we can take into account is the question of why the interview happened. Why did a newspaper believe interviewing this subject was important? Does that indicate notability? But that takes us to the occasioning of the sources, and relevant here is that these are coverage of the local team, and this is run of the mill stuff. Look at the 89 words from the coach above: it's just talking about him as a team member. We need something more here. If the subject is notable, someone other than the local paper will have taken note in something other than simple team news reporting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. – correct, which means that the quotes in the article cannot count as coverage of the subject. However, the ~260 words written by the journalist on Neiszner is coverage that counts as SIGCOV. All good sports journalism includes quotes, so you're suggestions that including quotes automatically makes sources primary and unusable would make basically all sports SIGCOV unusable, which is very obviously in error and a ridiculous assertion that I have never before come across in my five years of participation at hundreds of sports AFDs. Once again, whether you personally think this is "local run of the mill stuff" is entirely irrelevant; all that matters is whether there is SIGCOV in reliable sources, which we have here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I make it 171 words and I already dealt with that above. It tells us that he spent last season in France (signed because of his agent), his offense has improved, he scored 23 points in 26 games, and he is reunited with Justin Taylor. The source is primarily an interview in local press about a returning player. It is routine, and the occasion of the source (that he is a returning player) makes that information primary. Biographical information may be secondary, but there is no independent biographical information to speak of. It is almost entirely not independent. And we routinely treat routine local press more cautiously for notability. You are attempting to make this a black and white, any two sources and it's in. That's not what the policy says. What it actually says is this:

  "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.

  Under the accompanying note it adds "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." If we had one national source, I'd accept these take us to multiple sources, but they are simply not enough on their own. Thus, at this stage, my !vote is Delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure how you get 171, but it is ~260. Per GNG, a topic is notable when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It says nothing of "routine local press" being discounted. And I'll add that the Las Vegas Review-Journal is no small-town paper, but a large one, the largest in the state of Nevada. That the source is about a "returning player" is irrelevant; once again, the only thing that matters is if there's SIGCOV. It is not primary, and that there's some quotes in the article does not make it so, for quotes are a feature of all sports journalism. The suggestion that quotes automatically make a source unusable is ridiculous and would result in the deletion of the vast majority of all sports articles. National coverage is not required... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And let's not forget that IV is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Rlendog (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But not wrong. The policy it is based on is found in WP:PRIMARY. See note d. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But the relevant issue of whether quotes within a secondary source count as primary is not in WP:PRIMARY. Rlendog (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This looks like wikilawyering around the margins. Look, if you are writing a biography, everything the subject of the biography says about themself is a primary source and not independent of the subject, by definition. That is not just Wikipedia saying so. This is true everywhere, and should be self evident. It is also the policy (as I have shown) and the guidance (as I have shown). What you can seek to do with interviews is demonstrate that the fact of the interview makes a case for notability. That is, the occasion of an interview should be considered. It is not a mechanistic thing, but clearly if someone is being interviewed by a variety of different news outlets, there will be a reason why they are being interviewed. I've argued, in the past, that a subject was likely to be notable based on the range and duration of interview material. But that argument is quite apart from the GNG one. For GNG, interviews are neither independent nor secondary. There is no wiggle room there. They are not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: it's not per definition that interview material is primary; see Wikipedia:Interviews#Primary or secondary?. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which says The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. I already quoted it. What an interviewee says about themself is primary. Please note that this is exactly what I said. We are not talking about an interviewee talking about the right way to varnish yachts for our yacht varnishing page. We are talking about interviewees who are talking about themselves, for the question of what to put in their biographical articles, as I made very clear. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I made the note as your general advice What you can seek to do with interviews is demonstrate that the fact of the interview makes a case for notability. can be read as the content of an interview is always primary. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  None of that changes the fact that the article written by an independent journalist who decided to include the quote (or used information from an interview in their article) is secondary. None of what you have "shown" changes that. And the statement that you quoted is solely in the essay WP:IV, not in any of our guidance or policy. Rlendog (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And your claim that "everything the subject of the biography says about themself is a primary source and not independent of the subject, by definition." But some of the quotes you want to exclude from the Las Vegas article are from the subject's coach, not from the subject. But in any case, the journalist who chose to include those quotes in their article is not the subject and not even related to the subject so it should be self-evident that the article is secondary, even if WP:IV was a guideline or policy.Rlendog (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is just repeating what has been discussed above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Direct quotes are always primary, and when they come from someone affiliated with the subject they are not independent either. The only interview content that can contribute to GNG is secondary commentary by the interviewer; neither quotes nor "the fact the newspaper decided to interview them" counts as independent secondary SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As SIGCOV of the subject is provided. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is an article from the Las Vegas Sun about Neiszner. Not the most enlightening, and it does contain some quotes from the subject, but another independent, reliable source that felt this subject was worthy of an article. Rlendog (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd closed as keep, but have volunteered to relist per User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Neiszner May weigh in more later when I'm back online.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Wranglers page where he is mentioned. Per NOPAGE, we do not have to have an article just because coverage exists, and I think the very local-interest-news, interview-based slant of the current sourcing makes it hard to write a truly encyclopedic article on the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could pretty much make that sort of argument to get rid of any topic I want. "Yeah there's SIGCOV to meet GNG, but I don't like this subject and therefore I declare it to be unencyclopedic and it should be deleted per NOPAGE". There's no requirement that sources be non-local and it isn't "very local-interest-news" either, as e.g. the Review-Journal is the number one paper in Nevada. I don't understand a redirect to the Wranglers either, as they weren't even the top team he played for. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Red Deer Advocate even hyper local? According to Media in Alberta, it's the No. 6 paper in the province. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if the Review-Journal is not the number one paper in Nevada then the Las Vegas Sun is. And both have carried articles about Neiszner. Rlendog (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Six articles in the Red Deer Advocate (circulation 5,579) about a Red Deer Rebels player/coach are surely local-interest news. An interview in the Las Vegas Review-Journal about a Las Vegas Wranglers player is also still local-interest news. There can be significant coverage that is nevertheless not particularly encyclopedic enough for a standalone. This is more in line with PAGs than an editor insisting brief local blurbs are SIGCOV for someone who meets their personal standards for notability but are not SIGCOV for random other subjects (this isn't a reference to you specifically). JoelleJay (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No in 2010, it was circulation 83,987 per the Media in Alberta page linked above. We can't use the current figures. Physical newspapers are pretty much dead. They were already dead by 2010 too. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article on his coaching career. Some from the Calgary Herald. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Procedural note that the AfD was closed but reopened for a second time, see User_talk:HilssaMansen19#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Neiszner. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Las_Vegas_Wranglers per JoelleJay. I have struck my delete above in favour of this ATD which makes sense as the subject is mentioned there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment above: I don't understand a redirect to the Wranglers either, as they weren't even the top team he played for. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also baffled at the suggestion to redirec to the Wranglers. Neiszner is mentioned at Red Deer Rebels as an assistant coach, and played for higher level teams than the Wrangers. Flibirigit (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What redirect would you suggest? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep the biography, and no redirect is needed. My opinion has not changed that he meets GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Faruk Abdumajid (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)

Couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV. Only seems to appear as a passing mention in the sources in the article and other very similar sources. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Nigeria. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: clearly passes WP:BIO, WP:BLP. Worst case, should be merged into Federal Medical Centre, Daura. King ChristLike (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The head of a federal hospital meets WP:GNG. The cited sources are good to verify that. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know how you can say that the head of a federal hospital meets GNG - there is absolutely nothing in the guideline that states that. I agree that the cited sources verify the fact that the subject was appointed the head of a federal medical centre. However, none of them contain the significant coverage of the subject (his name is only mentioned as one of a list of similar appointees) that is required by GNG. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Round Rock Christian Academy (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 nominated this article for PROD a week ago, but didn't realize that it was already nominated for PROD and contested in the past therefore being ineligible for another PROD nomination (whew, i'll be more careful next time). I don't think that the school is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. As far as I can see, there does not seem to be a suitable article to redirect to, so AfD is the only course of action available. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, United States of America, and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect and merge into Round_Rock,_Texas#Education whatever can be salvaged on history (probably not more than half a paragraph) that is not ROTM "school teaches stuff". --hroest 20:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warren James Jewellers (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)

Should be deleted because it lacks independent, reliable sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia guidelines. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing found in support of retaining this article here. Ran a WP:BEFORE but hope of finding WP:SIGCOV effectively truncated by the abysmal search result. Patre23 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

!vote From an initial review, there appears to be a lack of secondary sources. However, the company is - in my view - notable. It is described in 2006 as "the United Kingdom's largest independent jeweller" in a Nominet ruling. It is described as a national jewellery retailer in a more recent 2023 legal judgment. It's last statutory accounts show a revenue of over £100m per year. I will attempt to complete a more thorough review of secondary sources to support notability. Salicia7 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added the Nominet ruling as a citation, but struggled to find further secondary sources. However, in my view there is adequate references for a stub of this lenght. Salicia7 (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mere mentions do not meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for in-depth "independent content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rangamati Government High School (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)

Upon search, I don't think that the school is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. As far as my search, I don't see any reliable, secondary coverage, and the current state of the article also primarily cites their own website. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Usually Bangladeshi education institutions in the Chittagong Hill Tracts does not have secondary coverage. Education institute outside Dhaka are usually area-wise popular. Like this one is a well-known in Rangamati. Additionally, this is the first & oldest school in CHT. Notable alumnis also studied here. WinKyaw (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The school doesn't have secondary, reliable coverage though, as you said in your reply. As @Hannes Röst said, just because a school exists, it does not automatically confer any notability onto the school. The school needs to be notable enough to warrant its own article, and the school clearly does not pass WP:NSCHOOL at this very moment. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It seems to be one of the 64 government high schools located in the 64 districts of Bangladesh. The locals reckon that these schools are quite the talk of the region within their respective districts. Somajyoti ✉ 16:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete there is no indication of passing WP:NSCHOOL, there are no secondary sources that I could find in books that go beyond trivial coverage. There are some sources on a formar headmaster but mentions the school in one line. The arguments of User talk:Somajyoti and User:Win Kyaw boil down to WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST which is not sufficient. Similarly the fact that notable alumni have studied here does not make the school notable by itself. @User talk:Somajyoti and @User:Win Kyaw, please see this RFC which was discussed in great length and concludes that High schools are not inherently noteable and that reliable independent WP:SIGCOV needs to exist for them as well, which I dont see here. There simply isnt any coverage that we could use to write an article. --hroest 20:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Mapandan local elections (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 cited sources cover the election at much length, and was not able to find much through searching. Election for small municipality of under 40,000, and relies on social media sources Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the page author has placed a comment on this discussion talk page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

I would like to kindly request that the deletion discussion regarding my article be closed. Since the nomination, I have been able to gather and incorporate additional, verifiable information and reliable sources that I believe significantly improve the article’s notability and overall quality.

I understand and appreciate the community’s concerns raised earlier. However, with the newly added sources and updates, I believe the article now better meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards. I am fully open to further suggestions for improvement and am committed to adhering to Wikipedia’s content and sourcing guidelines moving forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards, IJeskanEditorV1 IJeskanEditorV1 (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2025 Laguna local elections as per may arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Santa Cruz, Laguna local elections. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allin Kempthorne (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've AFD'd this, but actually I think it should be redirected to Wriggler (video game). There doesn't appear to be any independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the subject of this article. Sourcing is all tabloid news (The Mirror, The Sun, Metro) or passing mentions. Simply appearing on BGT (and not being recognised...) does not indicate notability. Simply being a bit-part actor in numerous films does not indicate notability. Additionally I have WP:PROMO/WP:COI concerns here.

They wrote the ZX Spectrum game Wriggler together with their twin when they were at school, and this game is clearly notable, but nothing else they have done appears to be notable.

Also nominating The Vampires of Bloody Island for deletion (no need to redirect this), which is the film Allin Kempthorne created. The only coverage that could be found for this is blatantly promotional ("we were forced to bring forward the release of this film because of an email campaign that no-one but us is the source for existing") and from sources of dubious reliability. Simply being nominated for a Twitter Shorty Award does not indicate notability.

Similarly also Learning Hebrew for the same reasons.FOARP (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Businesspeople, and Video games. FOARP (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Magic, Television, Entertainment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mokamtala Secondary School (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 reliable, secondary coverage about the school beyond the fact that it exists. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom Somajyoti ✉ 16:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge into Jhikargacha_Upazila#Education. --hroest 20:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. Not notable for alumni, staff or events. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. More sources would need to be found to bolster inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Scott Robinson (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)

Violates WP:BLP1E. Should be redirected to List of longest prison sentences. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Oklahoma. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would very strongly oppose redirecting it there, that is not the kind of list we should be redirecting BLPs.

If there is better sourcing getting the longest prison sentence of all time is notable enough that it IMO invalidates the second prong of BLP1E. So then WP:NCRIMINAL is also a consideration. The sourcing I can find is not great so honestly he probably just fails the WP:GNG. But he does have an extremely generic name so I may be missing stuff. But unless there is more sourcing I failed to find, delete (Not redirect). PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose a redirect because redirecting to a BLP to that kind of list seems bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or smerge is as appropriate as the sentence. Bearian (talk) 08:50, 5 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) 14:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic encephalopathy (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)

Very few WP:MEDRS, much of it is uncited, and the NINDS article (https://web.archive.org/web/20050720074428/http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/encephalopathy/encephalopathy.htm) that makes up a lot of the cited material in the article is actually not specific to toxic encephalopathy. I was going to remove all of the material that's cited to NINDS because it may not be accurate to toxic encephalopathy, but at that point it would be leaving the article as mostly uncited or cited to unreliable sources. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve per WP:PRESERVE. There are a large number of scholarly sources available including a few that take a broad look at the subject rather than the more specific case studies etc. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no reason to think this isn't a notable thing, just specialized. Ipatrol (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Panchagarh railway 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)

No indication of signifance. Every reference is the same identical announcement of name change back to the original name plus some route information. Fails WP:NCORP WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 16:27, 15 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 didn't found any special notability of this station to meet GNG. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Parbatipur–Panchagarh line as ATD Jumpytoo Talk 16:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to Parbatipur–Panchagarh line per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, not notable as a separate article yet. Agreeing with merge to Parbatipur–Panchagarh line per WP:ATD. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bravelets (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 does not appear to be notable upon search. Although they have a considerably large social media following, it does not contribute to notability. No secondary coverage found that would satisfy WP:NORG or WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, United States of America, and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears a decent amount of the coverage that was there in 2016 - including some of the sources I used in the article itself - have disappeared in the last decade. It's a shame I can't see the Austin.com article anymore. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the jewelry company may be notable, I will try to search for additional sources.--Amlikdi (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chao Khamrop Road (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:NROAD or WP:GNG. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 04:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per JackFromWisconsin, both of their points are points where this article fail. Madeline1805 (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, perhaps to Pom Prap, the subdistrict the street is located in. There is in-depth coverage such as the cited Art & Culture article[45] and this short TV documentary[46], but there's only so much that could be said about this minor street, it'd be better off as a mention in a broader article about the wider neighbourhood. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No notability. Local road with very minor historical importance. Doesn't meet GNG. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akunna (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. Not seeing significant coverage in sources on an internet search. Might also be considered a DAB page with only one article matching the name. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 05:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect. sourced from anonymous website. Weirdly, the website defines it as as female given name, but the only entry is a man :-) (I know, there is a Boy Named Sue, so why not be a boy named Akunna; I am just picking on the quality of sourcing). --Altenmann >talk 05:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Altenmann @JackFromWisconsin The name Akunna is actually commonly regarded to be unisex, and is predominant in the southeastern region of Nigeria. Verifiable sources are here, here, here and here. King ChristLike (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, none of these sources is acceptable for wikipedia. --Altenmann >talk 06:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Name not significant or widespread enough to merit it's own article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 PATAFA Weekly Relay Series – Men's 5 kilometres walk (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 no independent WP:SIGCOV for this athletic event and don't really see a strong redirect target either. The only independent coverage I could find was three paragraphs in this article, and that's not enough for WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. Please ping me if significant coverage is found. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics and Philippines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to notability concerns. The Guidon, which is cited by the article, is a student publication. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, I'd trust the Guidon with quality reporting over other newspapers... Howard the Duck (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Who are these competitors? Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki Shepard (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 doubt the article meets the standards for notability. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 13:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 13:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Texas. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 13:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very much a WP:HEY candidate; being a co-host of a major syndicated show for fifteen years easily clinches WP:N and sourcing to get her over GNG should be very easy. Nathannah • 📮 19:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't find much coverage, this reads like a rewritten press release with no real author [47]. Gnewspapers brings up a similarly named individual on Broadway in the 1970s, I'm unsure if it's the same person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It actually is the same person. She performed in Broadway before her time on the Apollo. – The Grid (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There has to be newspaper or textbook sources, I'm just in disbelief there's limited sources. – The Grid (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The only sources I found are passing mentions or not reliable. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have added sourced content to the article. I invite editors to re-visit and possibly re-evaluate it. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Great job, Teblick! I was getting there with internet sources but the newspaper sources definitely helped here. Keep per WP:HEY. – The Grid (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Grid, I'm glad that I could help. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hope for Hong Kong (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)

Page for a defunct centrist faction of the Hong Kong Liberal party. Four citations all to local news that stops with the collapse of this group. Considering they were a minor faction that never really accomplished anything and then folded its unlikely there will be more coverage in the future which means four local newspaper articles is likely what we've got. Lacking WP:SIGCOV I'd say delete it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I think it is clear that the party did fulfil GNG/NORG with those sources and this AFD seems to focus more on whether it deserves a standalone article. The article currently includes four sources from the Hong Kong Economic Times and HK01, both of which are credible media outlets and generally reliable sources on zhwiki (see WP:HKRS#HKET and WP:HKRS#HK01), rather than some small-scale local tabloids. The coverage in this HKET article[48] and this HK01 article[49] appear to be adequately significant to me. The corresponding article on zhwiki also includes a few sources from Initium Media and Citizen News, and I found more news coverage during the party's operational period, such as a Ming Pao article about legal scholar Jack Lee [zh] announcing his decision to join the party.[50] There are also some commentaries on this party, like an Initium Media article thoroughly analyzing whether this party's centrist stance has any chance of survival in Hong Kong,[51] as well as opinion pieces from Ta Kung Pao and Orange News discussing potential reasons for founder James Tien to establish the party and his future political agenda.[52][53] I personally do not believe being defunct or a party's achievements are relevant to notability, especially since the founding members are all notable politicians (James Tien, Selina Chow, Miriam Lau, Felix Chung, Lam Man-kit [zh]), not just random people forming a joke party or something. The nom is absolutely right that there has been a significant drop in media coverage about this party after its closure. But the coverage we got is more than sufficient for a GNG pass, and Wikipedia also records history, so a notable political party, even if it no longer exists, is still worth documenting. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 15:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  From the sources I think it's actually incorrect to call it a party - it was formed as a corporation to circumvent normal party formation requirements. However I still think the absence of any coverage outside of HK and the fact that it didn't have WP:LASTING coverage override the bare presence of a few sources. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:LASTING applies only to events, not defunct organizations. I also do not see any issues with notability merely because the coverage is local. Sources with a regional audience can still serve as strong evidence of notability per WP:AUD. The media outlets listed above, like HKET or HK01 or Initium, are among the most credible sources in Hong Kong. I think it is entirely reasonable for a local organization to operate solely within its region and exert local influence. It does not need to expand its influence to a global level or be reported by English-language sources to be considered notable (non-English sources are perfectly acceptable per WP:NONENG). Otherwise, it would promote an Anglo-centric bias on Wikipedia by rejecting subjects that have not received international or English-language coverage. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 16:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would at least expect SCMP or similar to mention it if this group had even regional significance. Like we're not talking about press coverage limited to one country or to one province. We're talking about press coverage limited to one city. Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe the term "regional" in WP:AUD (which is pipe-linked to Newspaper#Local or regional: A local newspaper serves a region such as a city, or part of a large city) is perfect for the case of Hong Kong, and I do not really understand the logic here: SCMP is still a local newspaper and should be dismissed if you are expecting coverage outside of Hong Kong specifically. I do not see a significant difference between SCMP and the Hong Kong Economic Times or Ming Pao aside from one being in English and the others in Chinese, which brings me back to my point about WP:NONENG. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 17:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Prince of Erebor's sources have shown that Hope for Hong Kong (traditional Chinese: 希望聯盟; simplified Chinese: 希望联盟) meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. I agree with Prince of Erebor's comments in response to the nominator. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says, "Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability." The Hong Kong Economic Times and HK01 are major regional publications, so the audience requirement is met. There is no requirement for there to be sources outside of Hong Kong or for the South China Morning Post to cover it. This political party is not an event, so there is no requirement for it to pass Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Lasting effects. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Ambati (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:NACTOR. Theroadislong (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Theroadislong (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should be kept as Arjun Ambati is a notable figure in the Telugu film industry. He has a significant filmography, with key roles in well-known projects, and his work has been covered by various media outlets. Additionally, he has a Google Knowledge Panel, which is an indicator of recognition and notability in the public domain.

I am working on adding more reliable sources, including interviews and articles from established media, to strengthen the article. His contributions to the industry further demonstrate his standing and relevance.

Thank you for considering my input. Kanthrajmys (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Google knowledge panel does not mean anything in terms of notability at Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 08:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – there is no coverage at all of him in independent sources, much less any significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 08:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your feedback and for reviewing the article. I would like to gently highlight that Arjun Ambati has been covered by independent and reliable sources such as The Times of India, Eenadu, Sakshi, and Andhra Jyothy. His work in Telugu television and cinema has also been featured on platforms like Gemini TV and Telugu Filmnagar. While I understand that a Google Knowledge Panel alone doesn't establish notability, it does suggest public interest and recognition. I’m continuing to improve the article by adding more reliable sources.

  Thanks again for your time and consideration. Kanthrajmys (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If there are concerns about the sufficiency of the coverage, I am happy to move this article to the draft space and continue working on it. However, I believe the current available sources demonstrate significant notability for Arjun Ambati. His coverage in reputed national outlets, such as:

  • Pinkvilla (13 August 2021) - A review of Sundari, featuring his role.
  • The Times of India - Official trailer for Theppa Samudram.
  • IndiaTimes (31 July 2024) - Information on the OTT release of Theppa Samudram.
  • News18 - Announcement of his role in RC16.

  These sources indicate notable attention from major national platforms, alongside his extensive career, including 10 films and numerous TV/web series.

  If this is not sufficient for immediate approval, I am more than willing to move it to draft space and continue gathering additional sources or improving the article further. Kanthrajmys (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Times of India is not generally considered a reliable source and we need sources that cover him in depth, not passing mentions or listings. Theroadislong (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Despite his modest role, it is evident that he has participated in numerous films, television series, and reality shows. However, there is an absence of significant coverage. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We have improvised the article with more relevant references. Please review and share your feedback Kanthrajmys (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. Charlie (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Altitude tent (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)

Maybe redirect/merge this into altitude sickness? The current state of the article is definitely not sufficient. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

altitude training might be more fitting. Oreocooke (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No reason for deletion given. Easy to find sources on GScholar about their effects. Pretty sure I remember altitude tents/hypoxic tents being discussed in mainstream news during an olympics event a while back too. Deletion is based on availability of sources, and they're definitely out there. Keep and improve per WP:PRESERVE. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Tudor of England (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 actual notability for this princess who lived for just 8 days. I suggest redirecting to Elizabeth of York#Death and aftermath or another target if someone can suggest a better one. Fram (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Royalty and nobility, and England. Fram (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question No notability for a Princess that is mentioned in over 50 different historical books? Govvy (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really, no. Is she mentioned as anything else than the infant of Elizabeth of York and Henry VII which died after a few days? Is there a reason to have a separate article instead of just a redirect? Let's take e.g. the first Google Books hit: Tudor: The Faily History. She is a name in a family tree, and the complete text about her in this specialized book: "Two more children would die as infants: Edmund, born in 1499, and Katherine in 1503". The most I can find are a few lines, which just repeat what's said at the redirect target: birth, death, death of mother.[54] Fram (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fram: There is such a thing as being notable through nobility, regardless of the length of life. It's just your choice of words. In fact, its a fatal floor in wikipedia to choose these words. As always, it's how you use the information you have. To me, choosing the right wording is important. Govvy (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And here I thought notability is not inherited. I must have missed the note that said that anyone is notable by force of being born from the right parents, no matter if their life had actually any real world impact beyond their direct family. Fram (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Elizabeth of York per nom. The largest part of this article is based on identifying her siblings and parents, which is information that already appears in her parents' articles. I am not surprised that Katherine is mentioned in historical books, but I would guess that those "mentions" are quite brief because she only lived for a few days. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nomination. Even if there is significant coverage, this doesn't seem worth an article. The sources look quite poor on this one; there's an AQA book and Tudor Times doesn't look like a reliable source - the About Us page is empty. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per nom - was going to suggest her father's page as a better target (he being more notable than her mother), till I actually read Fram's suggested target and I now see it's the better one as her birth contributed to her mother's death. PamD 07:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if we even need this redirect. I guess it does no real harm, but "Katherine Tudor of England" is a name not used in any books or websites and seems to be an invention by the article creator. Fram (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or delete as above. I also strongly object to the silly article title. The article should have been expanded or discussed at the original articles Katherine Tudor (1503) and Katherine Tudor, Princess of England, not created as a new one: see Help:Your first article#Search for an existing article. This looks like an attempt to subvert the redirection of those articles by creating the same article at a different title. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Elizabeth of York: A very minor historical figure, mentioned in history books. But not notable enough to deserve her own article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per all of the above. Same situation as Katherine Tudor (1503) and Katherine Tudor, Princess of England. An 8-day old child cannot be notable. Keivan.f^Talk 17:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Elizabeth of York I agree that redirecting makes the most sense here. Lacks notability to justify her own page but the information is still good enough to justify inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bahishti Zewar (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 is no doubt that the subject is notable as a book. However, the authorship of the book is highly disputed, and even the content variations are debatable. This issue has been discussed by Ahlehaqmedia, a scholarly website. In its current form, the article would need to be entirely rewritten based on reliable sources. Given the present structure and sourcing, it is not suitable as a standalone article. I propose redirecting it to the article on Ashraf Ali Thanwi.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per WP:DINC 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: Easily meets WP:NBOOK and WP:N for its religious significance. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Ashraf Ali Thanwi (one of the authors that has a wiki page). I don't think this is enough for notability and not for a stand alone article. Not much is mentioend in the article currently either. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep !votes are arguments to avoid, more input needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Christoph of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (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 significance of the person is not shown. Only genealogical information and the cause of his death are given. – RobertVikman 13:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Prince Alfonso of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (his father) per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I came here expecting this to be an easy delete !vote on a non-notable minor noble. However, a web search for "christoph zu hohenlohe", one version of his German name, turns up a bunch of significant coverage: [55][56][57], most of it about his death but some from long afterwards (that last link is from 2020). I'm gonna do a deeper dive for sourcing, but I'm leaving this here for now. Toadspike [Talk] 13:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is English-language sigcov on his death the Independent article already cited in the article [58], and French/German coverage in "L'étrange mort d' un noble lausannois", L'Illustré, 16.08.2006 by Arnaud Bédat; "Prinzessin Ira von Fürstenberg «Man hat meinen Sohn umgebracht»", Glückspost, 17.08.2006, by Marco Hirt and Roswitha vom Bruck;"Ende eines Genfer Jetset-Prinzen", Tages-Anzeiger, 11.08.2006, by Bernhard Hülsebusch. There is also an article over 1000 words long in the Sonntagsblick of 20.08.2006, titled "Keine Maiglöckchen im Knast", by Helmut-Maria Glogger.

  Good search terms include "Christoph von Hohenlohe", "Christoph Prinz von Hohenlohe", "Christoph zu Hohenlohe", "Christoph Prinz zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg" (which appears to be his full and correct title), and "Christoph Vittorio Umberto" (his full first names). I see some articles from the time saying that his death was first reported in the Italian press, which I do not have great access too – for instance, my sources mention his brother and mother speaking to the Corriere della Sera, but I cannot find the original coverage in that paper. (The article current links to an English translation of a Corriere article, but this doesn't quote Ira, so clearly there was more.)

  I don't think BLP1E or BIO1E preclude an article here, but in case that comes up I've also found some indications that he received significant coverage before his death. He is mentioned repeatedly in articles about his mother, Ira von Fürstenberg (a very underdeveloped article – she seems to have been quite famous). In a 1978 interview of Ira in the Schweizer Illustrierte, Christoph is mentioned several times, not least when the interviewer asks "Christoph hat anscheinend, wie man in den Zeitungen lesen kann, einen Riesenerfolg bei Frauen." ("Christoph clearly has, as one can read in the newspapers, great success with women.") – so he was clearly being covered elsewhere, too. Toadspike [Talk] 14:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources you specified contain information about him. But the information specified there does not give him significance according to any of Wikipedia's criteria of significance.

  When some aristocrat or any other famous person dies, they write about him in the news.

  But neither the sources nor the article show significance according to which the article could be saved. RobertVikman (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there's coverage of his activities as a socialite and of his bizarre death. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article does not provide anything other than the cause of death and genealogy. What significance criterion does this article meet? RobertVikman (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you did a proper WP:BEFORE search, you would see his philanthropic work. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article does not describe his activities in any way, and since I did not find anything about his activities on the Internet, I cannot be sure of the veracity of your words. RobertVikman (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the father. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to his father Prince Alfonso of Hohenlohe-Langenburg. Not seeing notability as a socialite. Not enough for stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion about whether to keep or redirect, per Toadspike's comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tacoma (band) (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. Declined at draft (non-notable). No social media, streaming. No coverage. Refs are band interviews. scope_creep^Talk 11:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:*Keep – Tacoma is an active Canadian country band with festival credits including the 2021 Cars and Country Stars Music Festival, where they were reviewed as a breakout act.^[1] They’ve performed at major Alberta events such as the Southern Alberta Music Festival and Ol’ MacDonalds Resort Music Festival, and are currently receiving radio support. Additional independent coverage is being gathered to support notability. Socials are very active and being added as the process is being further understood.

—Xsbucks (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC) Xsbucks (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are completly uknown almost and festival credits doesn't make them notable. scope_creep^Talk 19:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Tacoma is a Canadian country rock band that meets the notability criteria at WP:MUSICBIO through independent, non-trivial coverage. Their performance was reviewed in the 2021 Cars and Country Stars festival recap by Jamie Street, where they were named a “breakout supporting act.” This is third-party coverage published on the official festival website, not self-published or promotional. [59]

The band has appeared at multiple Alberta festivals:

• 2021 – Cars and Country Stars (Irricana, AB)
• 2022 – Ol’ MacDonalds Resort Music Festival
• 2023 – Southern Alberta Music Festival (Mossleigh, AB)

Despite claims to the contrary, Tacoma has verifiable **streaming and social media presence**:

• Spotify
• Apple Music
• YouTube
• Facebook
• Instagram
• TikTok

The band is signed to Altatude Music, is actively releasing music, and is expanding their coverage footprint. The article is being improved and meets Wikipedia’s threshold for notability under current policy. Deletion would be premature. —Xsbucks (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC) Xsbucks (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xsbucks: You can't !vote twice dude. Remove that second !keep vote. scope_creep^Talk

@Xsbucks: That ref you put is a blog and is non-rs. There is nothing on social media nor streaming sites regarding this band. scope_creep^Talk 22:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Just wanted to say — as much as I enjoy the back and forth, I genuinely appreciate your input throughout this process. It’s been a surprisingly resourceful experience, and I’ve learned a lot more about how Wikipedia works behind the scenes.

I’m continuing to improve the article in good faith and gather reliable, third-party sources as I go. Thanks again for helping sharpen the approach — your insight’s been valuable. —Xsbucks (talk)

Thanks mate. scope_creep^Talk 10:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting there, would be good to know your thoughts on it and if you had any suggestions on the framework?

Thanks Xsbucks (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep It's getting there, would be good to know your thoughts on it and if you had any suggestions on the framework. Xsbucks (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its not really. The band are non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at the refs:

• Ref 1 [60] This is a blog and non-rs.
• Ref 2 [61] This is interview with the band. Its not independent.
• Ref 3 [62] This is another interview. Its not independent
• Ref 4 [63] This is affiliated content. It is the same interview as above.
• Ref 5 [64] This is a routine annoucement of a gig.
• Ref 6 [65] This a series of event listings. Non-rs
• Ref 7 [66] Single mention as played there. A blog Non-rs.

Not a single one of these references satisfy WP:MUSICRS and WP:GNG. Its is a wee local band. The band is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, @Scope creep, and for pointing out areas that need better sourcing. I'm currently updating the article to include additional references that meet Wikipedia's standards for independent, reliable, and secondary coverage, as outlined in WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.

While I understand the concern around regional visibility, I’d like to respectfully note that notability is not limited to global or mainstream acts. Tacoma is an active Canadian country-rock band with:

• Consistent airplay and rotation on independent and syndicated Canadian radio stations.
• Multiple provincial and national festival performances alongside established artists.
• Press and coverage from recognized Canadian media outlets — which I’m currently incorporating as citations.

Wikipedia’s mission is to reflect the full scope of human knowledge, including cultural and regional music scenes. What may appear “local” to some editors may actually be nationally relevant within its genre and country, especially in a space like Canadian country music that has its own infrastructure and audience.

I’d welcome any additional guidance on structure, tone, or article formatting — but I’d ask that deletion not be rushed while sourcing and improvements are still being addressed. Xsbucks (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I'm in the process of tightening up the formatting and references, but I believe Tacoma clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria under WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.

The band has been active for over a decade and has a solid track record of notable performances and regional media coverage.

- Live Performances

Tacoma has performed at the Calgary Stampede (2022–2024), which is one of Canada’s largest music and cultural events. They’ve also played main stages at:

Cars and Country Stars Festival (2021–2025)

Southern Alberta Music Festival

Teepee Creek Stampede (2023), where they shared the stage with Corb Lund, High Valley, and Trevor Panczak

- Original Music

The band has released multiple singles across major platforms, including:

Tangled Up (2013)

Bottle Rocket (2022)

Gettin’ Out Alive (2025)

Music Video for Bottle Rocket on Youtube (2022)

New album releasing Summer of 2025

Their music is streaming on Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube, with airplay support from Canadian country stations.

- Media Coverage

Tacoma has been covered by independent media outlets such as:

Western Wheel for regional live performances

CJVR and Meadow Lake Now through on-air and online interviews

Festival-related articles and reviews through Cars and Country Stars media coverage

These are not trivial mentions — they’re editorial features and reviews from independent outlets with established reputations.

I’ll continue to clean up citation formatting, but I believe this article reflects a band that has earned its place through ongoing, verifiable contributions to the Canadian country music scene. Xsbucks (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment They are non-existant on social media. Here is social blade analytics for Tacoma. [67]. 27 subscribers. Spotify [68]. 3000streams. This is non-notable band. scope_creep^Talk 05:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks again for the input. Just to clarify: Wikipedia notability is not based on social media followers or streaming counts, but on significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources, as outlined in [WP:GNG] and [WP:MUSICBIO].

  Tacoma has received editorial coverage from:

  • Western Wheel and Cars and Country Stars media for festival appearances
  • Interviews and features on CJVR, CKBI, and Meadow Lake Now
  • Documented live performances at major events including the Calgary Stampede, Teepee Creek Stampede, and other established Alberta festivals

  These sources demonstrate real-world impact and sustained presence in the Canadian country music scene.

  At this point, I’ve provided all the sourcing and context available. I trust the community and reviewing editors to evaluate the article fairly based on established guidelines. I’ll leave the decision in their hands and continue improving the article as needed regardless of the outcome. Xsbucks (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social blade analytics is long recognised way on wikipedia of showing how popular a band is on social media. This is a modern garage band, so social media matters. Live performance and interviews don't towards notability. scope_creep^Talk 18:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the continued discussion, but I want to point out that this nomination was initially framed around the article’s credibility and supposed failure to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Yet now we’re shifting the debate toward social media stats, citing follower counts and Social Blade rankings as if they were policy benchmarks.

That’s not how notability works on Wikipedia.

As outlined in [WP:GNG] and [WP:MUSICBIO], notability is based on significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources — not popularity metrics or streaming totals.

It's worth noting that using a third-party analytics tool to suggest deletion contradicts the very spirit of objective, policy-backed review. If the credibility standard was the concern, then we should be evaluating the quality of the independent sources and coverage — not shifting to subjective measurements when that fails to support the outcome.

Tacoma has:

Multiple years performing at the Calgary Stampede

Main-stage festival slots alongside Corb Lund and High Valley

Published interviews and coverage in editorially controlled outlets (CJVR, CKBI, Western Wheel)

A handful of commercial releases and real-world recognition in Canada’s country music scene

These meet the explicit criteria for musical ensemble notability on Wikipedia.

Let’s keep the discussion grounded in the actual standards that guide inclusion, not personal interpretations or moving benchmarks. Xsbucks (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Eddie Seah (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:CRIME. Nothing exceptionally unusual about this parricide, with just a blip of media notice in October 2024. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adaugo (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:NNAME. Nobody of this name has an article, much less the two recommended minimum by NNAME. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Name not significant or widespread enough to merit it's own article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poutavanh Phengthalangsy (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. All the sources are databases. No evidence of SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 10:33, 15 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 Laos. LibStar (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Laos at the 1996 Summer Olympics where the person's name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Laos at the 1996 Summer Olympics: No sources except databases. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Laos at the 1996 Summer Olympics: Subject doesn't appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources are databases and I couldn't find anything better elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: very unique name. Search came up flat FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the Laos article, where one could briefly note his status as the lead-off man for the relay team. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Adyeri Omalla (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 person is not notable businessperson; the awards are not notable either. I cannot find proper third party reliable of the subject references. Seems the journalists are not very interested in this topic. Norlk (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UN link looks "good" but when you click on it and read it gives an interview format coverage, not reliable and not suitable for BLP:

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1093392

Julian Omalla, who is widely known as “Mama Cheers” after the popular juice brand “Cheers” that her company Delight Uganda produces, is now planning to expand with the construction of a new factory in the north of the country.

“When I launched my company, Delight Uganda Limited, in 1996, I didn’t know much about running a business. I started it from scratch, and had to overcome many challenges.

I remember walking for many kilometres, on bad roads, and working in my garden from morning to night. One of the low points came when my business partner ran off with all of the money I had raised to buy stock. All I had left was a wheelbarrow, to take fruit to market, and one red dress!

I couldn’t get any banks to finance my business, because I didn’t have any collateral, so raising funds to expand was an uphill task. Like most women in Uganda, I had to rely on savings and invest my profits back into the company.

This link https://unctad.org/news/prize-winning-ugandan-woman-entrepreneur-grows-juice-business-improves-community provides no significant coverage either, and neither this one https://observer.ug/business/julian-omalla-wins-un-award-for-inclusive-business-model/

Omalla thanked Enterprise Uganda and UNCTAD for the award, and pledged to continue working to support uplift rural women from poverty.

She said that she intends to reach at least one million women from the current 500,000, over the next 10 years. She also noted that Delight is in the process of installing a modern processing plant in the region so as to increase its capacity to be able to buy and process all the fruits produced by women farmers. Norlk (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...So is this a keep or delete, @Norlk ? Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete. the coverage is not reliable. Interviews and BLP don't match on Wikipedia in terms of establishing the notability Norlk (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There plenty of sources about her including couple of articles in New Vision (1, 2) and Daily Monitor (1, 2, 3)which are respected publications in Uganda. Also not sure why we suddenly think UN News is not reliable. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this page was previously nominated for deletion, and passed/kept. What is the new claim with the current nom? FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not see the reliable sources. The broad discussion is needed. None of the sources you mentioned pass SIGNIFICANT COV requirements. There are many about various companies' activities, memos signed, etc. but not about the businesswoman and her achievements Norlk (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  how is that different from the previous nom? FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not really notable material for a stand alone article. She is an entrepreneur, but that is not enough for a wikipedia article. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying participants in the previous AfD: @Old-AgedKid, @Tau Corvi, @Significa liberdade (who did not sign her comment). Toadspike [Talk] 09:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as did some editing to fix the tone of the article and added references to support this article. I removed the UN first person reference but the one with secondary coverage, mentioned here supports notability. In addition [69], [70], and the Daily Monitor references noted here all contribute to significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. There are also two other sources [71], [72] found during the previous AfD that haven't been added to the article yet. Nnev66 (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended reality (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)

Taking to AFD as a courtesy for further consensus. Whether this topic is genuinely distinct from virtual reality, mixed reality, and augmented reality has been disputed by an editor. The editor has attempted to make WP:BOLD mergers of this page into augmented reality, under an argument that the topic of "extended reality" is only synonymous with augmented reality, and that "pages should represent real things, rather than concepts that only exist in academia". ViperSnake151  Talk  01:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear original research. --Altenmann >talk 06:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's a high amount of coverage in academic sources (papers and books), a dedicated academic conference (International Conference on Extended Reality), IEEE participation, coverage in publications in journals from various fields (Computer Science, medical practice, geo-information). MarioGom (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Coverage of what? Augmented reality and virtual reality? The concept of "extended reality" is simply a buzzword. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about your opinion (or anyone else's), it's about what reliable sources say. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 09:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation page. After all, Extended reality is a GROUP of things, and that's what a disambiguation page is for, I think. I have made a draft for it. SeaDragon1 (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy House (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 -- the subject of this article fails WP:GNG, and notability for companies because of lack of WP:SIGCOV, and WP:SUSTAINED in WP:RS. There are lots of sources, but they are either WP:ROUTINE, very old announcements of the opening, or not independent. This article has serious NPOV issues to go along with that -- seems like advertising and promotion. This article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Washington. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft keep: The article is in desperate need for and update and rewrite, but I found a few local newspaper sources about the subject [73] [74] [75] [76] and a mention in Time Magazine [77]. These articles aren't very old and are independent. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Finno-Ugric substrate (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 is a bit of a difficult one. This page covers perhaps four separate topics - the Paleo-Laplandic Saami substrate (which to a lesser extent also occurs in Finnic), the substrate in the Finno-Permic languages (which here is misleadingly described as the Finno-Volgaic substrate even though it also occurs in Permic), the issue of toponyms in Finland, and the substrate in the Nganasan language. Combining these substrates into a single topic of "Pre-Finno-Ugric substrate" is not notable, but the topics individually may have some notability. The Paleo-Laplandic languages topic already has its own article, and the information about the Finno-Permic substrate should probably go to the article about Finno-Permic languages. Toponyms in Finland could maybe get its own article, and the discussion about the Nganasan language can just go to the language's article. Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Finland. Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the term is definitely used at least in Russian-language publications (i.e. Eugene Helimski used it as an umbrella term for 5 separate but related topics) and it's no less legitimate than, say, "Pre-Indo-European languages" or "Pre-Greek substrate". By the way, what I've read on the substrate in Finno-Volgaic languages (Zhivlov & Aikio) make only very few mentions of similar substrate word in Permic. Finstergeist (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this paper Aikio gives several examples that have Permic cognates, see pages 45-46, and he specifically mentions this:

"a surprisingly large part of the vocabulary traditionally reconstructed for

‘Finno-Volgaic’ and ‘Finno-Permic’ (UEW: 605–827) involves irregular sound cor-

respondences and other etymological difficulties."

I.e. Finno-Permic is specifically mentioned (also Finno-Volgaic, but that is a subset of Finno-Permic, and the vocabulary there has the same features such as abundance of š).

Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's well-sourced in the literature. Bearian (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Stop Now (Ladies On Mars Remix) (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 found of notability, best source is this blog already included in the articlev, looking through Google and Google News revealed no reliable sources discussing the song. Should be redirected to All You Need Is Luv'. Fram (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reason (and same redirect target):

Luv' Medley (Ladies On Mars Re-Touch Remix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Fram (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per lack of sources. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect both per nom, ATD, PRESERVE, and CHEAP. Not each song deserves an article. Sometimes just the artist. Otherwise neither. Thanks, Fram, for suggesting a fine ATD upfront! gidonb (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Head (G.I. Joe) (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 entirely. Mostly plot article of a non-notable cartoon character. (The previous nomination was closed as procedural keep due to the nom's disruption, but the merits were not discussed at all). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Toys. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. As in actually merge rather than just redirect so there's not less about the character than there is than Colonel Courage, as there's clearly some very minor notability, if not enough to justify a standalone
  • https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Ultimate_Guide_to_G_I_Joe_1982_1994/_BNjDwAAQBAJ? and https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fPYYEQAAQBAJ don't have much in-depth of the guy but would probably make acceptable citations of the basic facts in a list article.
  • https://thehardtimes.net/lists/every-g-i-joe-ranked-by-how-well-they-could-teach-a-sex-ed-class/ and https://thehardtimes.net/lists/50-g-i-joe-characters-ranked-by-how-effectively-they-could-have-stopped-9-11/ are a bit useless, even on the zany listicle scale. LOL, he has BO, it was mentioned on his filecard and never again.
  • https://lylesmoviefiles.com/2013/03/25/g-i-joe-the-movie-review-an-80s-classic-revisited/ again provides a source for citation of his role in the movie, but not in depth to justify a standalone
  • While some of the capsules at https://screenrant.com/gi-joe-3-characters-villains-discussion/ could probably help stub a Reception section, Beach Head's isn't one of them.
• As an overall point, this one can function nicely as a test case.

I'm not actually sure any of the G. I. Joe characters flood-nominated recently warrant deletion, most of them just need to be merged to the appropriate character list articles, as the vast majority have *some* notability, even if it's far from what's needed for GNG. As merging after an AfD involves simply redirecting because closing admins are busy people, I would suggest the sub-par Joe articles would be better sorted through proactive use of editing and merge/redirect templates, which would be a less time-consuming method for everyone involved, and probably wouldn't take any more time than decent BEFORE and researching AfD votes. Otherwise there's the risk we end up in one of those moronic loops where the list directs people to the main article, which directs people back to the list, which is a lot more irritating to 99% of readers of Wikipedia than an article being on the crufty side. Personally don't see the need to have a ticking clock on that being done after 19 years or whatever of the article being there. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Gottfried (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 significance. References are passing mentions, profiles and interviews. scope_creep^Talk 07:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Businesspeople, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Only the Syracuse source counts towards notability, everything else being a press release, unreliable, or an interview. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I think this topic is notable as a founder and leader in the green building community, especially with the sustainability concerns of today. Bearian has commented here that the Syracuse source counts. I just added another source which shows the subject's notability with significant coverage from a reliable, independent source (the government's EPA archives): https://archive.epa.gov/greenbuilding/web/pdf/bdcwhitepaperr2.pdf. I also think this USA Today article shows his significance from a reliable, independent source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/25/green-building-big-business-leed-certification/1655367/Jonasstaff (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usa article that uses Gottfried self-published book to expand the article to two small paras. It is WP:PRIMARY. The whitepaper lists references but no reference list, so it can't be verified, which is curious. That is a particularly poor design of a whitepaper. It is also full of adverts and corporate spam. Regarding 2nd ref in the article that was added on the 19 May. It is a passing mention at most. Its not in-depth either. These references are extremely poor and prove most of all that the dude lacks WP:SIGCOV that is independent, indepth and secondary. scope_creep^Talk 00:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep founder of major notable organizations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Headbomb: How goes it? I don't think notability is inherited. Is there a better argument here. I don't know. scope_creep^Talk 19:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Hour (Zero Hour 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)

No sources that I could find to confirm the article meeting WP:NALBUM. Most coverage of albums called "Zero Hour" is in reference to other albums with the same title. -Samoht27 (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. -Samoht27 (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H Elovitz (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 WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. An article referenced entirely by Elovitz's own publications. Did reach associate professor level at Temple University; a long publication history, but Scopus shows limited impact (H-index=3), although that seems to be missing his pre-1996 work. Klbrain (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I could only find 2 academic reviews of a book that he co-edited: [81] [82] which is not enough for WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. However, he was the founder and editor in chief of Clio's Psyche which could contribute to WP:NPROF#8 but I dont know how "well established" that journal is. --hroest 21:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That journal is open access and publishes three to four issues per year; it's not listed by Journal Citation Reports so doesn't have an impact factor - that doesn't count as a well-established journal in my view. Klbrain (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see nothing in his publication record that comes close to passing WP:NPROF, particularly as an associate professor of a small liberal arts college. Page contains multiple unsourced WP:Peacock paragraphs and the listed publications are from Pyschohistory News which is an unrefereed newsletter. If this AfD was not going on I would add a {{dubious}} to the page. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  comment regarding Dr. Paul Elovitz's notability according to WP:NACADEMIC

  Related to Klbrain #1: Beyond reaching Associate Professor at Temple University, in later years Dr. Paul Elovitz was a Full Professor of History at Ramapo College, NJ retiring from his role in 1992. Also, at Ramapo College, Dr. Elovitz introduced courses that integrated Psychology and History, establishing his own curriculums in "Psychohistory" - which is a significant accomplishment for a historian: Integration of any psychological concepts into the field of history were previously met with resistance and scrutiny.

  Related to hroest: Clio's Psyche is a peer-reviewed publication that was established over 30 years ago. It's peer review process is rigorous, involving a minimum of 5 peer reviewers from different fields of knowledge, such as: Psychology, psychoanalysis, anthropology, history, medicine and others. The standard for other well established peer reviewed journals is typically 2 peer-reviewers. The reason for Clio's Psyche utilizing 5 or more peer reviewers is the transdisciplinary nature of Psychohistory. Also, it is one of very few psychohistorical journals. Another journal that publishes psychohistorical materials is The Journal of Psychohistory.

  Related to Klbrain #2: Starting in 2025, Clio's Psyche is being converted to electronic/searchable format and included in the CrossRef database with DOI numbers assigned. This process is still continuing, and will be finalized by September 2025. PepWeb is in the process of acquiring access to all Clio's Psyche issues, when the electronic conversion is done.

  Related to LDM1954: Temple University is where Dr. Paul Elovitz started his career, but it was a short time. Dr. Paul Elovitz went on to a full professorship at Ramapo College.

  Dr. Elovitz was elected as president of The International Psychohistorical Association, a 48 year old international organization. He is the only living contributor to every years annual conference of the organization. This year, May 23-25, 2025 will be the 48th annual conference of the International Psychohistorical Association.

  Based on this input, what content do we need to clean and/or add into Dr. Elovitz's article to meet standards?

  Thank you for your time. PsychologyAdvocate (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  PsychologyAdvocate, you have misunderstood what makes an academic notable. All academics create courses, run conferences, many have elected positions in societies, these are routine for academics, please read WP:MILL. We require citations, favorable book reviews and/or major awards to demonstrate that peers consider them notable. None of what you mention above is relevant, sorry. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ldm1954, thank you for your feedback, this is helpful!

In the meantime, we will be revising the current article showing notability. We will be structurally basing the article on Dr. Otto Kernberg's Wikipedia page, showing that the institutions (The Psychohistory Forum) Dr. Elovitz created as well as the peer-reviewed journal (Clio's Psyche) are transdisciplinary and unique. For example, Clio's Psyche is one of two existing peer-reviewed psychohistorical journals; and The Psychohistory Forum, which has a 40yr history, is a place for academicians, clinicians, students and professors, across diverse fields of knowledge, coming together to discuss and help each other in their work in a hands-on manner - laying a foundation for the field of Psychohistory.

Uniqueness often is difficult to compare. Do you have a recommendation for describing pioneering work?

Thank you in advance for your time. PsychologyAdvocate (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Until his peers recognize the work there is nothing you can do. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, we are very conservative about what we accept.

N.B., don't use that article, it is awful as I just indicated on it. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does “we” mean more than one person? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Only primary sources in the article. I didn't find any SIGCOV in RS. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not much in terms of WP:RS sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete he does not seem to pass WP:GNG and I am not at all convinced of him passing WP:NPROF, the issue is that the field of Psychohistory itself is considered WP:FRINGE and so it is difficult to make the argument that he has been recognized by peers as an outstanding scholar if many of his peers believe what he is doing is pseudoscience (at least it clearly doesnt pass the WP:CHOPSY test). --hroest 15:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hosting Controller (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)

None of the references establish notability. I see only a few relevant hits on Google (The company name is very generic, though.): [83][84][85][86] and similar. All of them seemingly fail all criteria of WP:SIRS. This PDF could possibly have some SIRS coverage on the product, but I think that that is too little to establish notability. Janhrach (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Canada. Janhrach (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I would like to respectfully oppose the deletion of this article.

Hosting Controller is a long-standing and recognized name in automating service provisioning, user management, billing and metering for various on-premises and Cloud services including web hosting, Microsoft Exchange, SharePoint, Skype for Business, Azure and Microsoft CSP program, with over two decades of history and global usage. While the company name may appear generic, the product and brand "Hosting Controller" have a distinct and established presence, especially within the Windows hosting and hybrid cloud automation space.

The following points support notability:

External Review:

There are third-party sources, including [industry articles, hosting review platforms, and integration announcements] that cover Hosting Controller’s product offerings, partnerships, and impact in the hosting industry. These sources include:

Articles in web hosting review platforms.

Mentions and integrations with Microsoft Exchange, Hyper-V, and other enterprise systems.

Inclusion in hosting control panel comparisons and industry whitepapers.

Longevity and Industry Use:

Hosting Controller has been active since at least 1999, with a consistent product line evolving with market demands—from shared hosting control panels to hybrid cloud automation solutions.

Product Uniqueness:

Its support for hybrid environments (Windows/Linux/cloud) and integration with platforms like Microsoft Exchange, SharePoint, and Office 365 sets it apart from more common cPanel-style products.

Potential Sources:

The company documentation (e.g., whitepapers, PDFs) may not seem like SIRS at first glance, but many are cited or used by third parties in evaluations, comparisons, or implementation case studies. I’m happy to help surface more third-party mentions if needed.

Given the depth of its niche, industry presence, and long-term use, I believe Hosting Controller meets the criteria for notability and request that the article be improved rather than deleted. Zaighum Khalique (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please name the URLs you have found. I haven't found anything except the said PDF document. Janhrach (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. As requested, I am sharing specific third-party and platform references that demonstrate Hosting Controller's notability and industry relevance:

In-depth third-party coverage:

▶"Hosting Controller Delivers a Hybrid Automation Solution for Service Providers" – HostingAdvice.com (2021)

This is a professionally written and independently published piece that provides a detailed overview of Hosting Controller’s features, hybrid automation value, and market differentiation. It qualifies as a secondary source under WP:SIRS.

Industry presence on major platforms:

▶ AWS Marketplace Profile

▶ Microsoft Azure Marketplace Listing

These are not news articles per se, but they establish Hosting Controller’s integration and credibility within top-tier enterprise ecosystems. Inclusion on these platforms requires vetting and compliance, reflecting notability in its niche.

Given this, I respectfully request that the article be retained and improved, rather than deleted. Zaighum Khalique (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the latter two sources, they are neither secondary, nor independent from the subject. As for HostingAdvice, their website is blacklisted on Wikipedia, because someone has spammed links to the website, which is a good indicator that they publish paid-for content. Also, the author of the article you mentioned seemingly only publishes promotional articles. Janhrach (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete. This is spam, standard BEFORE shows nothing meeting SIRS, there's nothing in ProQuest or Gale either, and honestly what exists is so far from the bar I can't believe the socks expected anyone to take them seriously. Even if there were such sources, this would still be spam, so blow it up. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. Article has mostly primary sources and I didn't find any more. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Tom Seaver (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'm more concerned that the statue's notability is inherent rather than independent, despite the sources. Sure, detailing the statue is nice for readers to know, but such relevant info is mergeable into the parent article, Tom Seaver § Awards and honors. Also, I can't help wonder whether the article as-is violates WP:NOTNEWS or WP:NOTEVERYTHING. George Ho (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Baseball, and New York. George Ho (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being the creator of this article, I suppose I should give the reasoning behind this. I'd argue keep; the statue notable in it being the first - and, to date, only - MLB park statue in NYC. Its also one of the few statues of sportspeople in NYC in general, depicting an iconic cultural figure of the city. Its also one of the few noteworthy statues in Queens, New York.

Its also a statue which was long fought for and which caused considerable controversey due to the timing of its announcement after the depictee's diagnosis with dementia and, a year later, untimely death. There is more than enough reasonable info about the statue itself to justify a fork, rather than unnecessarily loading up the main article with extra details about the controversy surrounding the statue. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets GNG and per Omnis Scientia. I could repeat much of what they say above, and argue further for keeping this unique and important statue, but what comes to mind about this nomination is, why? Randy Kryn (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  what comes to mind about this nomination is, why? Maybe you'll see me as too prejudiced, but do I need to explain myself about something this obvious? If that's not obvious, I'll ask this: Do we need (a flood of) other articles about statues of certain athletes, like this person? Sure, a statue is of an honor, but a standalone article about this statue... Seriously, is this suitable for the project? Other than the inscription,( I see no other content that is not mergeable to the parent article, IMO. I fail to see how this article would grow over time, honestly. (No offense to the article creator.) George Ho (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not obvious while both reading the article and noticing its references. This is the first statue placed outside one of the ballparks in New York City, it honors a person many consider the team's all-time greatest player, and was placed while Seaver was still alive in hopes that he would be aware of it. Statues regularly have articles on Wikipedia, including many pages about sport statues. Notable in several directions. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This seems to have significant coverage in NY Times and, to a lesser extent, the NY Daily News and Reuters. The proposed statue had coverage several years before it was actually unveiled, and there was also some coverage in CBS Sports and Fox News about the statue having an incorrect jersey number. I think the nominator's argument of WP:NOTEVERYTHING isn't exactly applicable here, since one could just rebut with WP:NOTPAPER. However, I will say that the sourcing I found isn't enough to expand this beyond more than a start-class article, at least for the moment. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As the initiator, I may have to withdraw this nomination if there are no "delete" or "merge" votes within very short time (i.e. reasonably shorter time than a week) if not less than a week. —George Ho (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't need to. You can just wait for the natural course of the discussion. MarioGom (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Mario on this one. Let it run its course. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets GNG. While there could be an argument to merge with the Tom Seaver article (though not delete), the statue is a separate entity from the person, and so is appropriate for a standalone article, and a detailed discussion of the statue within the Tom Seaver article would give it undue weight in that article. Rlendog (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Classifier (UML) (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 is clearly more like a guide than an encyclopedia article. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Unified Modeling Language. Hyper-specific UML concept that does not need a standalone page. MarioGom (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OceanWorld 3D (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 PROD. Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find any suitable references or reviews that prove WP:NFILM. Seeking a redirect to Disneynature. Anarchyte (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Animal, and Disney. Anarchyte (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added a review from CineMagazine, which is a WP:RS. Another review would be needed to pass WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 12:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Turkish film magazine Sinema has written something about the film: [87]. Low res scan, hard to even transcribe that. --Mika1h (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Kurniasari, Triwik (2009-11-15). "The wonders of the sea in 3D: About 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered with water, and most of that is made up by the ocean". The Jakarta Post. Archived from the original on 2025-05-16. Retrieved 2025-05-16.

     The article notes: "OceanWorld 3D is the first feature-length nature documentary ever filmed and released in 3D, using the 3D large format underwater digital, boasting naturally beautiful views you can also smell and touch, thanks to the filmmakers' use of natural lighting. The 85-minute movie was created by Jean-Michel Cousteau, son of the celebrated underwater explorer Jacques-Yves Cousteau, directed by Jean-Jacques Mantello, and co-produced by Disneynature and 3D Entertainment chairman Francois Mantello ... OceanWorld 3D is reminiscent of Pixar's animated movie Finding Nemo, a comedic yet eventful journey ... The film also reminds us to appreciate the richness of the ocean, as well as to preserve its biodiversity."

  2. Kay, Jeremy (2009-06-10). "Disneynature takes OceanWorld 3D for North America, Mexico". Screen Daily. Archived from the original on 2025-05-16. Retrieved 2025-05-16.

     The article notes: "Disneynature has acquired North American and Mexican rights to 3D Entertainment’s OceanWorld 3D, the first feature-length nature documentary filmed in 3D. OceanWorld 3D premiered at the Cannes market in May and will be released theatrically in France and Russia in August. The North American release date will be announced in due course. The film explores the world’s oceans and their wildlife from the Great Barrier Reef in Australia and Argentina’s Peninsula Valdez to Mexico’s Roca Partida Island."

  3. Heinen, Frank (2011-02-01). "OceanWorld 3D (2009)". Cinemagazine (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 2025-05-16. Retrieved 2025-05-16.

     The review notes: "In ‘Oceanworld 3D’ zien we de wonderlijke onderwaterwereld door de ogen van een migrerende zeeschildpad. Bruisende koraalriffen, die fungeren als ware eldorado’s voor een bonte verscheidenheid aan kleurrijke vissen en schaaldieren, ondiepe kustwateren en de onmetelijke blauwe leegte die de open oceaan vaak is, alle zeebiotopen komen in feite aan bod in deze onder supervisie van Jean-Michel Cousteau (de zoon van de illustere documentairemaker en oceaanverkenner Jacques) geproduceerde documentaire. Qua vorm is ‘Oceanworld’ een aparte film. Niet alleen speelt de film handig in op de huidige hype rondom 3D-producties, maar opvallend genoeg wordt het verhaal verteld door een reizende zeeschildpad."

     From Google Translate: "In ‘Oceanworld 3D’ we see the wonderful underwater world through the eyes of a migrating sea turtle. Vibrant coral reefs, which function as true Eldorados for a colorful variety of colorful fish and crustaceans, shallow coastal waters and the immense blue emptiness that the open ocean often is, all marine biotopes are in fact covered in this documentary produced under the supervision of Jean-Michel Cousteau (the son of the illustrious documentary maker and ocean explorer Jacques). In terms of form, ‘Oceanworld’ is a special film. Not only does the film cleverly play into the current hype surrounding 3D productions, but remarkably enough the story is told by a traveling sea turtle."

  4. "Okyanus Dünyasi" [OceanWorld 3D]. Sinema [tr] (in Turkish). October 2009. p. 14. Retrieved 2025-05-16 – via Internet Archive.

     The review notes: "Belgesel, dünyamızın yaşam kaynağı clan okyanusların içinde barındırdığı güzelliği ve cesitliliği mahtesem görün- tülerle anlatıyor. İzleyiciler deniz kaplumbağa-hrının rehberliğinde Avustralya'dan Arjantin'e ve Meksika yakınlarındaki Roca Partida Adasa'na yani köpekbalıklarının evine doğru büyü leyici bir yolculuğa çıkıyor. Seyirci yolculuk boyunca köpekbaldarmin avlanmalarımı, yunus- ları oyunlarım ve çesit cesit balığın dansini izliyor; deniz canlılarının yaşamlarına yakından sahit oluyor. Notlar: Jean-Jacques ve François Mantello kardeşler 40 dakikalık ve 3 boyutlu gösterilen 3 belgeselden (Ocean Wonderland, Sharks, Dolphins and Whales 3D: Tribes of the Ocean) sonra ilk uzun metraja belgesellerine imza attı. Yine 3 boyutlu gösterilecek olan "Oceanworld" tam 7 yıllık çalışmanın ürünü. Bu belgesel için 25 farklı bölgede toplem 200 santlik çekim yapıldı. Yani bir açıdan önceki ic belgeselin birleştirilmiş ve genişletilmiş versiyo nu da denebilir "Oceanworld" için. Belgeselin anlaticist ise, Fransız sinemasın yükselen yıl diz ve Oscar' aktrisi Marion Cotillard."

     From Google Translate: "The documentary tells the beauty and diversity of the oceans, which are the source of life on our world, with magnificent images. Under the guidance of a sea turtle, the audience goes on a fascinating journey from Australia to Argentina and to Roca Partida Island near Mexico, the home of sharks. Throughout the journey, the audience watches sharks hunting, dolphins playing and various fish dancing; they witness the lives of marine creatures up close. Notes: After 3 40-minute documentaries screened in 3D (Ocean Wonderland, Sharks, Dolphins and Whales 3D: Tribes of the Ocean), Jean-Jacques and François Mantello brothers have made their first feature-length documentary. "Oceanworld", which will also be screened in 3D, is the product of 7 years of work. A total of 200 centimeters of shooting was done in 25 different regions for this documentary. In other words, "Oceanworld" can be considered a combined and expanded version of the previous documentary. The narrator of the documentary is French cinema's rising star and Oscar-winning actress Marion Cotillard."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow OceanWorld 3D to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Disneynature: The film doesn't seem notable enough. Sources provided doesn't seem independent or reliable. The Screen Daily one looks like a press release. Cine Magazine isn't a RS. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Cine Magazine has been used as a RS for dozens of AfDs over the years. Consensus says it is. Regardless, Cunard has listed multiple other citations that you failed to evaluate. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you elaborate on why is Cine Magazine a reliable source? Seems to me it's an online magazine, where anyone can apply to be a film reviewer, and those film reviewers aren't paid for the position. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources listed above are enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lamanske (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 notable coverage in the press, the only sources were compilers with data about the player's performance DankPedia (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and Baseball. DankPedia (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - my own search came up empty--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BeanieFan11. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets GNG like every MLB player, see e.g. headline stories such as this, and other things such as this and this among others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please add those to the article DankPedia (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You can add them too. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. MLB players are notable. Spanneraol (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BeanieFan11.-- Yankees10 23:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sources found by @BeanieFan11 prove notability.

  Shrug02 (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GNG. Clearly a BEFORE fail and another example of why the old NSPORT participation criteria for baseball players (perhaps with some adjustment) would keep us from wasting editor time. Rlendog (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes GNG, clearly closing NSPORT was a grevious mistake done me a group of people that didn't know better. Wizardman 01:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Believe me, its discontinuation has been a huge benefit to Wikipedia. Swathes of non-articles are being cleaned up continuously. Geschichte (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some benefits, some terrible detriments. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per GNG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 12:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

InstaPay (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 app is not notable by its own, and it does not have enough reliable third party sources with journalistic significant not just press-released coverage. All the sources within the page and the ones I managed to find BEFORE are only event-based - Egypt's central bank launched... Norlk (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep InstaPay is a nationally significant app in Egypt, launched under the Egyptian Central Bank's strategy for digital payments. It is widely adopted and integrated into government and private banking systems. many sources talked about it such as her bankygate.com and enterprise.news and ahram.org.eg Mohamed Ouda (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article subject could be mentioned in the article about the Central Bank of Egypt and this article redirected there as an alternative to deletion. Pavlor (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A notable product in the financial world, with notability backed up by reliable sourcing.Simxaraba (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Software, and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Bat Cave (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 does not appear to be notable upon search - there are articles such as the Austin Chronicle, but they are not WP:SIGCOV so there's no reason to presume that the subject is notable. The current state of the article also only has one reference, which is their own website. Also slight WP:NPOV issues. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, I have begun to add references to the article and fix the language. I am still finding more refs, but it is already a very different article than what it was before. StonyBrook _babble 09:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This literacy organization meets GNG and NCORP by way of the following newspaper articles that are available via the Newspaper Archive & Newspapers.com (requires access): Daily Texan (9 Nov 2015) Nonprofit Austin Bat Cave teaches, publishes children's creative writing which is a front page newspaper feature article (two pages long, with photo); Brownsville Herald a half-page article (29 July 2019) with four photographs Expressive Project: Teaching writing is as important as reading; Lockhart Post Register (8 September 2022) Evening with the Authors a paragraph on the founder of Austin Bat Cave; The Paducah Sun (18 July 2019) Is teaching writing as important as teaching reading? feature article with three photos of Austin Bat Cave, later picked up by the The Saginaw News 23 August 2019) and circulated nationally; Austin American-Statesman (12 Jan 2017) Out - several paragraphs and a photo of the founder; Austin American-Statesman (16 April 2011) Tutors with Austin Bat Cave help students get their wings - feature article with photo on the front page of the "Life & Arts" section, continued on a second page as a half-page article with three more photos; and more. These sources (and others) clearly provide the required secondary Significant Coverage in multiple reliable sources that are fully independent of the organization over an extended period of time - for years. The coverage addresses the subject in-depth and directly. I agree with StonyBrook that the article may need cleaning up and improvements, however that is not a valid rationale for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 13:35, 2 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 16:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merian Centre for Advanced Studies in the Maghreb (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)

Bilateral research centre sourced to the websites of related organisations, lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Tunisia, and Germany. Mccapra (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Did this come from draft space? If so, send it back for more work. If not, send it there for more work. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s past the 90 day deadline for sending to draft without coming to AfD first.Mccapra (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But can be sent back to draft by consensus here. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, though if nobody can find decent third party sourcing there’s no point in draftifying it. Mccapra (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Girls High School (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)

Apparent lack of notability, no good quality sources readily apparent in this article. This is just some small school. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:SIGCOV most of the sources arent even about this high school. --hroest 13:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: "Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Charlie (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coney Island Film Festival (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 do not see notability for this film festival as the sourcing is local without the depth needed to establish notability. A merger to CIUSA might be merited, but I'm not sold on that either. Star Mississippi 03:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and New York. Star Mississippi 03:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from the reviewer who accepted this at AfC, happy to chime in. I will note that this was a rather borderline acceptance but the draft (now article) did a good job of paring down to just containing the independent reviews of the otherwise routine coverage of the event. The Brooklyn Rail's coverage "Brooklyn's Beachfront Romance With Cinema Continues at the Coney Island Film Festival" does contain some of the most independent analysis but the quoted pieces in the article should be analyzed here (source assessment table anyone?) to see the depth of their independent coverage relative to the article as a whole could meet WP:THREE or if the breadth of the coverage makes up for any shortfalls therein. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The Coney Island Film Festival has been held annually since 2001 and has received repeated coverage in independent, reliable sources including the Brooklyn Eagle, Time Out New York, Brooklyn Paper, Brooklyn Rail, and MovieMaker Magazine. While the depth of each individual source varies, taken together they meet the WP:GNG threshold and satisfy WP:NEVENT. The subject is clearly verifiable and has maintained public relevance for over two decades. — Albieabbiati (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Added sources from NYT [88] and NBC NY [89]. Only the NYT contributes towards WP:THREE, while NBC NY is a routine event announcement. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: The Coney Island Film Festival is a local event, and film festivals are common worldwide. Merging with the Coney Island article avoids unnecessary fragmentation per WP:NOPAGE while preserving notable information from existing sources per WP:PRESERVE. HerBauhaus (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While I'm inclined to agree, in the event of a merge, I suggest merging this to Coney Island USA (the organization that operates the festival) and not Coney Island (the article for the neighborhood). – Epicgenius (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Photonics Network (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, fails WP:GNG. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:44, 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Couldn't find anything to suggest it passes WP:GNG. The article in The Age confirms that it was involved in redesigning the Victorian physics curriculum, but only provides a passing mention. I wasn't able to find anything else of note. MCE89 (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ratalaika Games (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 fail WP:NCORP - simple as that. Lacks secondary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:31, 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: i made the page, but i see where you're coming from, added a few more sources to do my best attempt. ive seen similar pages sourcing/notability wise, i believe it should stay and grow sr1jj (ᴛ) 15 May 2025

@Sr1jj:, please format your comment/vote properly. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am finding a lot of sources but the company is just mentioned along with the games. As it is a company, it must meet WP:NCORP which means there needs to be in-depth coverage, not just mentions. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - i am finding a lot of sources with them in the title and can point to contemporary existing pages. --sr1jj (talk) 16 May 2025

@Sr1jj:, again, please format your previous comment/vote properly. There is an unnecessary heading ("notability"). As far as finding "a lot of sources," can you point to the ones that meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hackinformer and Switch Effect, two sources that conducted interviews, appear to be non-notable fan sites, and other available coverage is about the games it publishes, not the company. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Valley 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)

Doesn't satisfy WP:N and there are limited WP:RS When doing my WP:BEFORE i only found WP:PRIMARY sources, signifying that this hospital does not deserve its own Wikipedia article. DankPedia (talk) 23:31, 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Medicine, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NHOSPITAL. Charlie (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies involved in the Gaza genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is clearly a violation of WP:NEUTRAL. Regardless of the title of the Gaza genocide article, we don't need a list of companies that supply weapons that implies they support genocide in Wikipedia's voice. BilCat (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. BilCat (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Category:Companies involved in the Gaza genocide is connected with this article, but I don't know how to include it, or if it should be nominated separately. BilCat (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article does not claim that these companies support genocide in Gaza—it documents their involvement in it, as clearly stated in the introduction. It will include not only companies supplying weapons, but also those providing technology, funding, and other forms of support ( will be added later ).

A similar precedent exists with the List of companies involved in the Holocaust article.

Article is supported by reliable sources as linked in External links and is written from nutral point of view. Cinaroot (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust is a universally recognized series of atrocities and genocide that have been adjudicated before multiple courts of law. Please cite the legal court cases where these businesses have been convicted of complicity in any war crimes in Gaza. See also WP:REDFLAG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies involved in the Gaza genocide does not say companies are complicit, but rather involved. What you are arguing is irrelevant. I'll also note, Complicity (non legal context) does not require a legal conviction. Complicity in such context doesn’t always mean companies actively participated in genocide, but rather knowingly enabled or benefited from.

Wikipedia does not require legal conviction to document allegations or involvement when reported by reliable sources.

The article avoids stating these companies are guilty of war crimes; it documents their role as reported in reliable sources. This is aligned with how Wikipedia handles similar topics—including in articles like List of companies involved in the Holocaust, which you referenced.

If concerns remain about how certain companies are represented, those can be addressed through improving the sourcing and wording—not by deleting the entire article. Cinaroot (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide is a war crime. It is ipso facto criminal conduct under international law. Complicit vs involved in, is a distinction with no material difference here. You are accusing, in wiki voice, companies of involvement in criminal activity. That requires a level of sourcing which does not exist. As far as I am aware, no one has actually been convicted in any court of genocide with respect to Gaza. As such, it remains legally an open question if such is even taking place. How can we accuse entities of involvement in crimes, that have not been proven, and for which they have not even been indicted? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re conflating genocide with the crime of genocide. I’m not going to get into whether Israel has committed crime of genocide or not—that question is heavily debated by the community and the article Gaza genocide deals with the issue.

The article does not assert guilt; it presents involvement as reported, with careful language and attribution. Where language may overstep or be too close to “in-wiki accusation,” that can and should be adjusted through discussion and editing—not deletion. Cinaroot (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cinaroot indicates that "This article does not claim that these companies support genocide in Gaza—it documents their involvement in it" — This assertion is belied by THIS-> [90] edit summary by them, asserting Amazon's "complicity" in the ongoing Gaza atrocities. The intent of this page seems quite clearly to provide a handy blacklist for action against "complicit" entities, which is well outside of Wikipedia's purview, regardless of how politically desirable such direct action might be. Carrite (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello - i added that source because someone said 972 magazine is unreliable because its written by Palestinians Talk:List of companies involved in the Gaza genocide#The cite for Amazon The nation is reliable source as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - this is done to satisfy the critiques - not with intention to prove Amazon's complicity. Ultimately, what matters is the content of the Wikipedia article, not speculation about the motivations behind a citation. If you disagree with the material, please focus your critique on what’s actually written in the article — not assumptions about editorial intent. Cinaroot (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: see Cinaroot's comment and the title is also "List of companies involved in the Gaza genocide" and not "List of companies supporting the Gaza genocide" Laura240406 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Would support re-naming to "List of companies involved in the Gaza war" or some other variant if there are NPOV concerns. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list, but keep information and create a new prose article or merge into Gaza genocide or Israeli war crimes in the Gaza war. EvansHallBear (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will also point the nation article [91] also mentions genocide in gaza where they referenced the list by American Friends Service Committee. [92] Cinaroot (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that would defeat the purpose though as the list specifically refers to companies that are involved in actions that belong to the broader topic of the Gaza genocide. e.g. a company that produces aid packages would be involved in the war but not in the genocide (bad example but you get the point). Laura240406 (talk)

Fair point. "List of companies involved in Gaza war crimes" would've been a better suggestion. I don't see any problems with the current title personally, but was trying to say that a title change is preferable to a total deletion. EvansHallBear (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EvansHallBear those article are already above 15k word limit. It cannot be merged there. And this is a growing list. Cinaroot (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Leaving aside the questions of neutrality and phrasing, this is not a notable intersection for these companies. The fact This article does not claim that these companies support genocide in Gaza—it documents their involvement in it, means it's non-defining, and while that applies specifically to categories, the fact is that none of these companies are notable - it's a WP:COATRACK of sorts to shame the companies in question. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: COATTRACK doesn't apply here though as there are at least 2 sources (see the external links section) that tie all these companies together as profiteers and lists their involvement. Laura240406 (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Per our list notability rules, the company's involvement does not need to be a defining characteristic. Only the topic of companies being involved has to be notable. IMV it is, so I'm opposing deletion. (t · c) buidhe 02:16, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing NLIST. Nominator stands correct that the title is bad, yet that part can be changed to something along the lines of companies that supply sides in the Gaza War, or that supply the IDF in the Gaza War. The absence of sources for this list as whole, however, is not a coincidence. The IDF has suppliers of military equipment and these companies really belong to IDF discussions. The supplies are not specific to the Gaza War. For Hamas, state actors are often indicated as suppliers and this is already discussed elsewhere. Supplies were largely or entirely cut off by the IDF. gidonb (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: There are sources though: here here here and here (taken from the external links section) Laura240406 (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources exemplify the weakness of the argument to keep. Only one of the sources provided is somewhat independent. And even then, The Nation identifies itself as a progressive publication. This means that it has a particular political perspective, and its content should be treated with appropriate caution and attributed to its perspective. In this case it decided to tie general supply information of the IDF to alleged crimes. That isn't NPOV, neither is our article. The other sources provide organizational opinions. One of the sources you provided is even a press release! Now I see that you BLUDGEONE under each other opinion that is different from yours, so maybe next round I will explain in even greater detail the importance of organic and responsible growth and of neutrality of our encyclopedia. gidonb (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are of course additional secondary sources in the list tying the use of specific weapons to Israeli war crimes in the Gaza war. These war crimes are well documented by human rights groups and experts. Although The Nation is biased it is considered a WP:RS. Per WP:POVDELETION, concerns about NPOV can be addressed over time and don't warrant deleting the entire article. Dismissing the opinions of multiple UN independent experts because they are in a press release seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Laura240406 has made 6 comments so far, all responding to different arguments in a WP:CIVIL fashion. It seems a bit premature to accuse her of WP:BLUDGEON. EvansHallBear (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note the press release says “international crimes, possibly including genocide” and not just “genocide”. Changing word “genocide” in title to “war crimes” would make these sources more usable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - my reasoning is a little unusual but runs as follows; it's a serious allegation to make that a company should be added to this list and the risk of false-positives (meaning fake information or wrongly adding a similarly named company) would seem to be high. Unless a company itself was proud of its involvement and publicly stated as such, I don't see that there is sufficient historical inquiry to warrant a page. In my view and without assuming bad faith on anyone, this is currently not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. JMWt (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: it's not an allegation as all entries are based on reliable sources proving their involvement and the "false-positive" argument doesn't really hold because of WP:TRUTH. If the sources say so, we say so. Laura240406 (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  With respect, whilst the entries currently on the page are arguably well sourced, the debate is about the topic and the potential that it could be a problem.

  There are issues of verifiability and edit-warring within these topics, which is why they are subject to special editing restrictions. Having this page is an open invitation for spreading disinformation in my opinion. JMWt (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  that's why I've nominated it for extended protection per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict Laura240406 (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  By this standard, Wikipedia couldn't have any articles on contentious topics. There are policies is place for dealing with disinformation, so deleting the article entirely isn't warranted. I definitely agree that care needs to be taken to avoid tenuous links or turning this into a BDS list EvansHallBear (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is liable and needs to be deleted as Wikipedia can be sued for this kind of content. Govvy (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia only reproduces what the source say so they would have to sue the sources, not Wikipedia itself.

  Also see e.g. here. Laura240406 (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't matter, wikipedia can still be liable for what it has. In fact, there is the ability to circumvent wikipedia and actually go directly to a user and sue that person for adding liable information to wikipedia. Either way, this kind of content isn't neutral and should be avoided. Govvy (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That invalidates your point though since the editors themselves would be liable and not Wikipedia as a whole. This is also not defamation since it's based on sources and doesn't alledge anything. The article doesn't include any speculations as to who is legally responsible or who vocally supports the genocide. It just lists suppliers of the weapons that are used for the genocide and related war crimes, which are statements that are easy to proof and verify.

  e.g. the IAF carpet bombs Gaza using F35Is -> Lockheed Martin produces them specifically for the IAF -> Lockheed Martin produces the fighter jets used for carpet bombing

  Every step of this example can be backed by sources and the logical conclusions can also be backed by sources so it's not original research. There is no room for interpretation or defamation here. Laura240406 (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not a legal expert, but my understanding is that laws like Section 230 (in the U.S.) protect platforms from liability for user-generated content. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, disputed material can be challenged and removed through established editorial processes. It’s not up to individual editors to assess legal liability — our role is to ensure content aligns with Wikipedia’s core policies: verifiability, neutral point of view (NPOV), and no original research.

  Whether or not Wikipedia can be sued is a legal question beyond the scope of editorial decisions. What matters here is whether the material follows wiki policies. If it meets those standards, it belongs — even if it’s uncomfortable or controversial. Cinaroot (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (Personal attack removed)

• Keep: neutrality of the title aside, companies involved in Gaza genocide is something regularly covered in reliable sources, usually in the context of boycotts or geopolitical issues. And they are not only covered individually, they are often discussed as a group, even if it's just a small subset at a time. For example, articles discussing which companies supply weapons. --MarioGom (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To illustrate my point, here's a sample of some sources discussing companies involved in the Gaza war as a set. I have not included soures about individual cases, which are way more abundant, but just a sample of sources that support treating these companies as a set in a list article:

  • Sax, Sarah (16 February 2024). "They're Supposed to Be Socially Conscious Investors. Why Are They Funding the War on Gaza?". The Nation.
    Discusses how ESG funds participate in companies involved in the Gaza War. Explicitly names Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems.
  • Ackerman, Spender (9 July 2024). "These Corporations Are the True "Winners" of the War on Gaza". The Nation.
    Discusses companies benefiting from the war. Explicitly names Colt, Ford, Caterpillar, Palantir, Google,
  • Pamuk, Humeyra; Stone, Mike (24 June 2024). "Exclusive: US has sent Israel thousands of 2,000-pound bombs since Oct. 7". Reuters.
    Discusses weapons exports as a group. Explicitly mentions Boeing Co, opens new tab and General Dynamics. Based on US officials declarations.
  • Rodríguez, Olga (1 October 2024). "Quién vende y exporta las armas que Israel usa en sus masacres". eldiario.es (in Spanish).
    Discusses companies as a set, exporting weapons used for Israel to use in the Gaza War. Explicitly names Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon-RTX, Day & Zimmerman, General Dynamics, Oshkosh Corp., Leonardo, Rheinmetall and MTU Friedrichshafen. Reporting partly based on the Centre Delàs report [93].

  --MarioGom (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete mostly per Bushranger above. There are only 4 articles with the title "list of companies involved..." - two of them are about being involved in specific fields. The other is List of companies involved in the Holocaust. That article makes very clear that it is a defining characteristic of the companies involved directly supporting the Holocaust through things like utilizing forced labor, or directly engaging in censorship, or building new plants/factories to specifically support the actions of the regime in severe ways. Merely selling arms to a military who went on to be accused of war crimes is not a defining characteristic - otherwise, we would have an article listing companies involved in the construction or operation of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, for example.
  In other words, the one other similar article has clear intentional links between the companies and the war crimes committed. On the other hand, this article is virtually entirely "guilt by association". There is zero evidence that any of the companies listed so far have done anything differently to "support" the actions of the military. In other words, it's an attempt at advocacy through a WP:COATRACK - saying "hey, look at this list of companies that are supplying the Israeli military". It is not a defining feature of these companies, and it is not an independently notable topic. It is likely that the information on who supplies the Israeli military (both now and historically) is due weight to include in an article about the Israeli military. But attempting to split this out like this is nothing more than a POV fork and should not be tolerated.
  Lastly, even if people think the above issues aren't present, this is a clear example of why WP:NOPAGE exists. Other information provides needed context for this that is not possible to present in a table/list format, such as the history of the conflict, the actual way that the companies' supplies have been used, the use of other supplies not listed in the table, etc. Whereas, again, this page can only ever serve as "ooh look at this list of companies that you should dislike because they supply the Israeli military" - and actually does our readers a disservice by splitting this off from the context and information that would be presented if it were included in other relevant articles, following WP:DUE, of course. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally, I don't think your first paragraph holds water. For example IBM were not, as far as I know, directly using slave labour during the Holocaust, they were supplying computer equipment. And they're on the list you mention.

  Similarly I don't think your second holds much water; continuing the analogue you've introduced, a chemical company which knowingly supplied Nazi death camps in full knowledge of what the chemicals would be used for were not just "guilty by association"

  The difference with the Holocaust and this article is that there has been extensive historical research and academic debate about the topic since the 1950s. In the current situation the killing isn't even over. JMWt (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support removing IBM from that list then as they were not directly and intentionally involved in the Holocaust. And you seem to be agreeing with my second point - a chemical company (such as BASF, listed in that article) that knowingly sold chemicals specifically to be used for mass murders, and even built a new factory at a concentration camp to be used specifically to supply it... well yeah, that's clearly more than "guilt by association". Merely supplying a military is "guilt by association" without more information and context. Hence why this page should not exist as a standalone list/article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  List of companies involved in the Holocaust has way more "guilt by association" than this article currently does:

  • Allianz provided insurance
  • AP cooperated with Nazi Germany and disseminated Nazi propaganda – all western news agencies have made this bargain with Israel
  • Baccarat produced Vichy propaganda
  • Chase bank assisted in the sale of Nazi war bonds – By this standard we can include Bank of America, Citi, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan as having underwritten Israeli bonds.
  • Rumors that Coco Chanel (not the Chanel co) was a Nazi spy
  • Deutsche bank made loans
  • Henry Ford was a "virulent" antisemite
  • Hoesch produced steel (if they used slave labor the one reference provided doesn't make that claim)
  • The Merck family supported Hitler – quite a few U.S. CEOs publicly support Israel

  ...and on

  All of the companies in this article continue to sell arms or otherwise do business with Israel after it was accused of war crimes. I think that qualifies as direct and specific support. Had any of these companies terminated their business relationship with Israel after it became clear they were committing war crimes, that should be specified.

  You have convinced me that this information would be better served in article format instead of this list format. I would support deletion contingent on an article similar to Private sector participation in Nazi crimes being established in its place. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I also support removing any other guilt by association in that article or any other similar articles I have yet to see. But to be blunt, I would only support removing any/all of those "guilt by association" from that table. Not necessarily removing them from Wikipedia as a whole - but "guilt by association" should not be handled in a short table entry, but in context - comparing them to other companies in the same field, for example - that can only be provided by prose in an article. So I think we agree there. What we disagree with is whether there's so much due information that it needs to be its own article. Ultimately, I doubt there is so much that is actually due weight that it can't just be covered in Gaza war, Israel Defense Forces, their sub articles, etc. Regardless, a split-out can be considered if the information becomes unduly in other articles that already exist. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 20:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This list violates NPOV and is very selective in which companies are listed. As much as I personally wish companies would care more about people than profits, the unfortunate reality as the wikipedia is potentially liable for content it keeps up and listing companies that are only tangentially involved is a risk to the project as well in addition to the NPOV problems. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The list is selective because all entries have to be properly sourced and should rely on verifiable facts, not just accusations or speculations. As for the NPOV part: give me reliable sources that contradict the claims made in the article and I'll add them. NPOV doesn't mean "taking no sides" or "not saying bad things", it means that there should be a balanced view based on the available RS. Laura240406 (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to a new article "Complicity in the Gaza genocide" Keep or Move to a new article "Complicity in the Gaza genocide" (Position updated --JasonMacker (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)) - This article would be better formatted, per the reliable sources discussing the topic, as a descriptive article rather than a list. This would also make the title more neutral. I see such an article as helping to reduce the article size of Gaza genocide by moving the details provided in Gaza_genocide#Responsibility_of_third_states, but also having a broader scope to be inclusive of private companies and state-owned enterprises. That section of the Gaza genocide article would summarize facts presented in the new article.--JasonMacker (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't be too miffed with this. But I would much prefer it to be added into other articles first - even if this ends up being deleted before a "new" article is created. For example, there's more than just Gaza genocide that this information would be better placed on, such as Israeli Defense Forces since the vast majority of these companies have been supplying them since well before this portion of the conflict. If all possible articles get too big then that can be handled by WP:SUBARTICLE, which specifically calls out not being hasty to create them. Too often when sub-articles are created outright like this rather than as a split from another article, they become magnets for WP:UNDUE - specifically being way too much depth of detail that isn't encyclopedic to include. And this can lead to its own NPOV problems - ultimately making it a POVFORK disguised as a subarticle. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i think complicity is a stronger statement that `involved` directly or indirectly. `involved` is more neutral. Cinaroot (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also be okay with Alleged complicity in the Gaza genocide, depending on what WP:RS say. This list article is already functioning as describing the listed companies as complicit in the genocide. That's why, for now, it's not appropriate as a mere list, but rather a descriptive article that correctly attributes any alleged complicity to specific reliable sources that are making the allegations. In any case, I don't see how saying a company is "complicit" in genocide as opposed to being "involved" in genocide is really much of a distinction. How can a company be "involved" in genocide but not "complicit"? I would say that rather than being more neutral, using the word "involved" sounds euphemistic. JasonMacker (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Complicity is a significantly more inflammatory, and less neutral, term than "involved". ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you give an example of a private company that could be described as "involved" in the genocide but not "complicit"? JasonMacker (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categorically this applies to every Palestinian company whose property is damaged or whose employees are killed by Israel -- the company is "involved", by virtue of being a victim, but not "complicit" by virtue of lacking any intent. Complicity requires intent (as a matter of law in the U.S., and as a matter of common practice across the Western legal systems that Israel's criminal code is built upon). Regardless, it's not incumbent on me to give specific examples -- it's sufficient to point out that a proposed title categorically fails WP:NPOV and lacks precision. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've physically been in factories in a warzone who were making clothing for the military power which was attacking them. It's a long and winding story of sub-sub-sub contractors and desperation. I doubt that this is directly happening in this region, however it isn't so hard to see that there are different levels of involvement and complicity in a genocide. JMWt (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While your hypothetical example is conceivable, I was interested in a real example where reliable sources actually do make this distinction. Are there reliable sources that describe a company as involved in the Gaza genocide, but not complicit? JasonMacker (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't supposed to be a philosophical discussion on complicity vs involvement. My question is focused on trying to gauge what reliable sources are saying so that we can write a Wikipedia article accordingly. For example, the first source used in this list article is this war on want article. It directly uses the word complicity. But then, this source discusses "very minor or one-time involvement" in the Gaza genocide. Is that the goal? Is it to have a list of companies with any and all involvement, or should the article focus on sources that focus on complicity? That's a scope question, but either way, I think it would be better served as a descriptive article rather than a list article. JasonMacker (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it says the list also includes companies that have minor or one time involvement. Not all of them are minor. Some of them are significant. Cinaroot (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is largely where I'm at. My preference would be for private sector and state participation to be covered separately though. I think "Private sector involvement in Gaza war crimes" would work best as more sources use war crimes than genocide (per Bobfrombrockley (talk · contribs)'s argument above). EvansHallBear (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would take Govvy (talk · contribs)'s input with a grain of salt as they've claimed that +972 Magazine is unreliable because it is written by Palestinians here, then went on to deny the consensus at Gaza Genocide here and then did this again and personally attacked me here. Laura240406 (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While not sympathetic to their viewpoint, we should avoid WP:ADHOMINEM attacks. EvansHallBear (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand your concern and I only brought this up since they personally attacked me, not for the points before alone. Laura240406 (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per the keeping arguments and sources on this topic presented above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also support renaming it to "List of companies involved in the Gaza war" per Monk of Monk Hall below 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Tendentious attempt to Right Great Wrongs. Unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is Not A Blacklisting Service. Carrite (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you seen this List of companies involved in the Holocaust ? any comments ? Cinaroot (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do have a comment: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as POVFORK and per WP:N, article doesn’t have to claim these companies support the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. POVFORK of what article?
  2. notability shouldn't be an issue since there are multiple RS talking about this topic.
  3. what do you mean by your reference to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades?

  Laura240406 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per nom. Clearly fails NPOV and appears to be a COATRACK with the object of righting great wrongs. I also concur with Anonrfjwhuikdzz's point above. The list appears to be more than slightly selective. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Addendum I note that a number of other editors have been raising concerns about the possible legal implications of labeling companies as complicit in genocide and/or other war crimes absent a definitive legal determination. I think that is an extremely weighty point. WP:REDFLAG would seem to apply. We cannot have an article that explicitly accuses any person or entity of criminal conduct in wiki-voice absent a legal adjudication to that effect. On that basis I am adding a Strong to my above delete. See also the very good comments by AndyTheGrump directly below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NPOV. Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't been speedied as potentially libellous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you clarify whats the NPOV issues are? Cinaroot (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  NPOV issues start with the first sentence: "This list includes corporations and their documented involvement in the Gaza genocide and other war crimes." As of now, there has been no court ruling that war crimes have been committed in Gaza. And there certainly has been no court ruling that these corporations were 'involved' in any such war crimes. What is actually documented is that the companies listed have been doing business with a regime that is widely regarded as engaging in such war crimes. The assertion that doing such business constitutes participation a criminal act is unsupported by sources, and clearly no more than opinion. A widely held opinion certainly. But still opinion, asserted as fact. Asserting as fact that corporations (even corporations we don't like, doing business with regimes we don't like) have committed criminal acts is at minimum a violation of WP:NPOV. And as I suggested above, possibly libellous. And frankly, I am at a loss as to what exactly this list is supposed to achieve anyway. As an exercise in partisanship, it is utterly transparent, and will convince nobody but the already convinced. If contributors to Wikipedia wish to engage in propaganda with regard to this topic area (and some clearly do, as has long been documented at ArbCom etc), they need to work on being a little more nuanced. This hit-list has all the subtlety of a charging bull elephant, and will do nothing to improve the credibility of broader Wikipedia coverage of the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment so I don't have to reiterate it again. WP:NPOV doesn't really make sense here since it reads "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The article represents all significant views on the topic as published by reliable sources as there aren't really any sources denying the companies' involvement. Invoking WP:NPOV sounds more like WP:IDONTLIKE. Also see WP:POVDELETION as to why this wouldn't be a good reason to delete the article as a whole. Laura240406 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK that have been cited repeatedly by people opining for deletion. Even if it's all the information available about companies that are even tangentially involved - which it's certainly not (see WP:WIP - it's impossible) - it's still an attempt to move the content out to its own article/list. While often splitting information out into a separate or sub-article is appropriate, in this case the resulting article/list does not have the context and related information (such as companies that stopped selling to Israel/its military at the beginning of the war). That is one example of what's meant by without editorial bias in the NPOV policy. Trying to segregate information that is intended to be (or at least, will be) perceived negatively about an organization on its own page, without context, is purely an editorial decision - and it introduces bias. The only reason negative information should be split into another article is after careful consideration of WP:ARTICLESIZE concerns. Not to try and name and shame companies. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:COATRACK doesn't apply here as there are sources that actively group multiple companies together (see WP:WINAC).

  WP:POVFORK also doesn't apply here if I understand it correctly since this is a list of multiple separate entities that share a common trait according to the sources. Their involvement in the Gaza genocide can also be part of the companies' articles themselves but as with List of companies involved in the Holocaust, it is a list of companies that share that trait. Laura240406 (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, the list may meet WP:NLIST. But per every link so far, meeting notability is never enough to guarantee a separate article. You've ignored WP:NOPAGE which states that factors to consider are Does other information provide needed context and Do related topics provide needed context. Both of those are true in this case. Without the context provided by the parent topics (such as Gaza war, Israeli Defense Forces, etc) this article is merely an attempt to name and shame companies. In other words, a POV fork. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  is WP:COATRACK is an official wiki policy ? its an essay and not vetted by community. All those citing this and other policies that are not official should not be considered. Cinaroot (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Essays explain policy. Some essays, such as COATRACK, have become widely accepted as reasonable explanations of policies to the point that citing them is argument enough. Arguing that "it's just an essay" is not a valid argument to contradict the citing of COATRACK or other essays that are widely accepted. If you have no valid arguments to contradict them, then your !vote and arguments will likely be (properly) reduced in "value" (or "discounted") by whoever closes this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think that the list meets WP:NLIST because of the large amount of WP:SIGCOV about this topic. I also agree with Laura240406's above comment about WP:NPOV and WP:POVDELETION. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 22:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete emotional activism. Super Ψ Dro 23:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, mostly pr Cinaroot's comments, Huldra (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non neutral and libelous garbage. Jevansen (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject entirely meets WP:SIGCOV. There are more names that we are yet to add there. The article is going to see further expansion. Orientls (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly a notable subject. The talk page of the article tells there are more names that are yet to be added. Not to forget we already have List of companies involved in the Holocaust. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Holocaust is a universally recognized series of atrocities and genocide that have been adjudicated before multiple courts of law. Please cite the legal court cases where these businesses have been convicted of complicity in any war crimes in Gaza. See also WP:REDFLAG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it's a list and we keep all lists, especially if they are about politics or current affairs. Someone will be along shortly to post some newspaper articles that mention some companies involved in trade with Israel, and that will clinch it. Once we have the sources no one can possibly argue against deletion, because this is Wikipedia and is not censored and we do right great wrongs as long as they are the right wrongs to right.You are too flippant - Mr Brock, form teacher. Sorry, I mean Delete for reasons that ought to be obvious, but probably are not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Monk of Monk HallDraftify The concerns of the OP are spot-on. That said, the article is potentially redeemable with a new title and front matter. Chetsford (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC); edited 05:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you able to edit or propose changes? Cinaroot (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - List of companies involved in the Holocaust is for companies with documented collaboration in the implementation of the Holocaust, Forced labour and other German war crimes (emphasis mine). Meanwhile, the Gaza list seems to be mostly composed of arms manufacturers and other companies that continue to do business with the Israeli government despite the genocide allegations. These WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments do not work because selling weapons to a government and collaborating with a government to implement a genocide are two very different things. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The list includes not only includes weapons provision, but also technological support and financial backing. ( more to be added) Under international law, providing arms to a state committing genocide is illegal. The Genocide Convention obligates states to prevent and punish genocide, not merely refrain from participation. This article is not making a determination on whether Israel is committing genocide, but documenting corporate involvement in the context of what has been referred to as the “Gaza genocide” by numerous reliable sources.

  The companies listed in the Gaza-related article are not merely neutral suppliers — many have been explicitly warned by UN experts that continued arms transfers to Israel could amount to violations of international law and risk state and corporate complicity in potential genocide. This is materially similar to how certain companies during the Holocaust were implicated — not necessarily as originators of policy, but as enablers and facilitators of atrocity through economic and logistical support.

  Executives of several companies have acknowledged their involvement and some CEO outspoken pro-Israel views Lockheed Martin executives has highlighted the conflicts in Israel and Ukraine as potential opportunities for future revenue growth. CEO of NextVision, an Israeli startup said "wars are good for business". This guardian article talks about how wall street is hoping for an explosion in profit from violence in Israel and Gaza.

  The comparison to companies involved in the Holocaust is valid, not because the situations are identical, but because the principle of complicity in atrocity crimes applies in both. The argument that “selling weapons is different from implementing genocide” draws a false dichotomy. The distinction between “selling weapons” and “collaborating to implement genocide” is not as absolute as you suggest. Under international law, particularly the Genocide Convention, complicity in genocide does not require direct participation in planning or executing genocidal acts. Knowingly facilitating genocide through material support—such as arms, technology, or financial services—can constitute complicity. Again this article - does not make a case for complicity or if company knowingly participates in Gaza genocide but rather documents its involvement.

  Companies also risk tacit complicity in the Israeli government’s violations even just by carrying out their business activities in the country and contributing to the wider economy.

  [94] Obligations of Third States and Corporations to Prevent and Punish Genocide in Gaza Cinaroot (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to companies involved in the Holocaust is valid, not because the situations are identical, but because the principle of complicity in atrocity crimes applies in both. No, it is not "valid" by any stretch of the imagination. The Holocaust list can only exist because the companies were convicted by a court of law of complicity in Nazi crimes against humanity. If we were to include any companies with documented collaboration but no conviction (not sure any exist, but it's just an analogy), then we would be breaking both WP:RGW and WP:LIBEL. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to accuse people or companies of complicity in crimes against humanity. We can cover allegations and accusations of complicity or involvement all we want, but we cannot make such accusations in wikivoice, and we especially cannot have an article titled "List of companies involved in [a genocide]" unless and until they are convicted in a court of law. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in the statement The Holocaust list can only exist because the companies were convicted by a court of law of complicity in Nazi crimes against humanity. Is there a way for readers to validate this statement? Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It mostly has to do with WP:LIBEL. As I stated above, we cannot accuse people or companies of involvement in crimes against humanity in wikivoice without a conviction. An article titled "List of companies involved in [a genocide]" should not include any companies accused of, but not convicted of involvement in the corresponding genocide. A separate article, such as "Allegations of corporate involvement in [a genocide]", could be created for those companies.

I would like to clarify that I am not against an article like the latter existing for this topic, but I oppose simply renaming this article. Having these companies listed as "involved" even in the publicly viewable page history is likely still a violation of policy. - ZLEA _T\^C 06:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the statement "should not include any companies accused of, but not convicted of involvement in the corresponding genocide" but only because the genocide label is a distraction. There would be more utility in a title like "List of profit-making organizations that help Israel carry out acts of mass violence that kill and injure tens of thousands of civilians", but it is a bit wordy and unlikely to find consensus. But my question is about whether readers (and editors) can confirm whether the statement The Holocaust list can only exist because the companies were convicted by a court of law of complicity in Nazi crimes against humanity. is true or false, without having to do a lot of research themselves. It is a claim. Is it true? If it is not true, the argument doesn't work. For example, ExxonMobil have been convicted by a court of law for all sorts of things, but is involvement in the Holocaust one of them? Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust list does not claim or even imply that ExxonMobil itself was involved in the Holocaust. It says the Deutsch-Amerikanische Petroleum Gesellschaft, which is now a subsidiary of ExxonMobil, was. That said, a quick Google search did not turn up any evidence of a conviction of the company or any executives, and I don't see any mentions of such a conviction in the company's article. It's probably worth looking into, but that's something that needs to be discussed on that article's talk page, not here. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, perhaps it was a bit of a hyperbole to say "the Holocaust list can only exist because the companies were convicted by a court of law of complicity in Nazi crimes against humanity." The Holocaust was 80 years ago and I assume all of the executives that would have had anything to do with the Holocaust are long dead, so WP:BLPCRIME would not apply to companies accused of being involved in it. Still, the same cannot be said for the companies listed in this article, so my point still stands. - ZLEA _T\^C 09:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not making a determination on whether Israel is committing genocide, but documenting corporate involvement in the context of what has been referred to as the “Gaza genocide” by numerous reliable sources. If numerous reliable sources refer to an event as a "genocide", the last thing we should do is create an article accusing people and/or companies of involvement in said event in wikivoice. Genocide is one of, if not the worst crimes against humanity imaginable, and accusations of even involvement in such crimes should not be made lightly. Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor are any news sources, so we are totally unqualified determine guilt of any crimes and should not even imply guilt until after a conviction. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to List of companies involved in the Gaza war, Private sector participation in the Gaza war or something similar. I think this topic is clearly independently notable as evidenced by the existing sourcing and significant global public engagement with private sector involvement in the war. However, I think it is best to define the scope of participation as being a war that everyone agrees is happening, rather than a genocide that is unfortunately hotly contested, especially among companies accused of facilitating it. I think this modified article scope will broaden and deepen the sourcing available for the article and avoid the appearance of an unacceptably biased or advocacy-driven list. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm okay with these title's. Cinaroot (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Monk of Monk Hall. Companies involved in the Gaza war certainly do meet WP:NLIST, and is pretty neutral when most of the companies mentioned work in the defense sector – taking the step to say they are involved in the Gaza genocide makes the list much harder to define, without really changing the intended scope. Also, while not deletion-related, a lot of the commentary in the list is about Israel's other activities in the West Bank and Lebanon, and the whole list is in need of cleanup. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what would people think about renaming this to a more broad title, which would include pre-exsisting allegations connected to the BDS movement and earlier boycott movements?:
  • Allegations of corporate complicity in Israeli crimes against humanity
  • Allegations of corporate complicity in Israeli international crimes
  • Allegations of corporate complicity in violations of international law by Israel and shifting from a list-type article to a prose-focused article (maybe with a summary table/list). I think this could have the benefit of including the debates on both the violations themselves and complicity in them & being more NPOV compliant by focusing more on the history of allegations than the actions which are automatically framed as complicity. Plus, for thoose concerned with notability, I think the allegations concerning all of Israel's actions past and present are more likely to as a whole reach notability. Mason7512 (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To me, those would still all be better started as portions of the articles affected and then split out if they become too large. The problem with starting it as its own article is that, because there are no immediate WP:ARTICLESIZE concerns, they can tend to violate DUE on large scales. I still firmly doubt there is enough information about this subtopic to justify it being covered outside of the context of other articles (such as Gaza War, Israeli Defense Forces, etc). But even if there is, that should be shown by putting the information in one (or more) of those articles and considering WP:DUE in those articles. Then a split can be considered for size reasons and per WP:SS.

  Note that I consider this a special case - the proposed new article is (and will likely continue to be) significantly less watched than the other potential articles are - and thus it will be much easier for people to violate NPOV/DUE in it than if the information was added to the other pages. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to List of companies involved in the Gaza war. A highly notable topic and new title is good. Koshuri ^(グ) 08:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to "List of companies involved in the Gaza War" (or war). It's a neutral title, the subject is notable, and the sourcing is fairly good. Smallchief (talk)
• Keep The criteria for a notable list has been met in that these companies are talked about as a set in reliable sources. AugusteBlanqui (talk)
• Delete per nom and many editors' arguments here, particularly ZLEA, who really nailed it. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read my reply to their response. Ty Cinaroot (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to 'List of companies involved in the Gaza war' seems like the best solution for now. The genocide label is distracting. If it were the best label, the 'Gaza war' article would be called 'Gaza genocide', and maybe it will be in the future. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom — DonBeroni (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What the actual f*ck. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan's Next Top Model (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 source is a "news of the weird" type story that appeared in English language outlets in 2007. The actual name of the show does not appear in the articles. A briefly mentioned unnamed show does not add up to notability. Gamaliel (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Fashion, and Afghanistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael P.J. Gerstein (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 American entrepreneur. At best WP:TOOSOON. Can't find RSs to meet WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, simply. Given that it is a BLP the standards for sourcing are much more strict than the article currently observes, also. Coeusin (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources from Deadline are reliable, but only mentions. Other sources I found weren't RS or mentions. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarks, 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)

Another spot back=added to the topos via GNIS from the state highway maps, it settles on an isolated farmstead, but that may be coincidence. Topos show a Monon line running north by this spot, so it could be a rail spot, or perhaps a 4th class post office. But a town it is definitely not. Mangoe (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Powerlifting Alliance (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 article is almost entirely based on primary sources. A search for third party sources reveals just 1 google news hit. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not seeing any independent WP:SIGCOV in various searches. --Here2rewrite (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seyberts, 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)

Baker identifies it as a post office, though topos show it was probably also a rail station, as it sits adjacent to a long-abandoned rail grade which is almost completely vanished but which is quite plain in the oldest aerials. There's no town here and mo sign there ever was. Mangoe (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a town, just a post office named for the proprietor. Reywas92^Talk 13:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qabila 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)

Still fails WP:NSPORT, even though a source ([98]) has recently been added. GTrang (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I removed the redlinks, addded sources, cleaned up up some of the citeneeded content. Al Ittihad is, BTW, a national daily. It's still very, very borderline and possibly WP:TOOSOON but I believe this new club now squeaks glides in past WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty around to help notability, [99] that third source in the article is good from TalkSport, and the signing of Papiss Cisse [100], [101]. There are many sources that can be used. The article will only grow over time. The club will either sink or swim. There are lots of sources out there that can be used. Govvy (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Due to the small number of professional clubs in the UAE, I believe that all of them have adequate coverage. Svartner (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources/arguments above which show notability. GiantSnowman 18:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This seems notable enough to justify inclusion. I would feel better if it had more sources but I feel like it just barely meets WP:GNG. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lxs Dos (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 Mexican/American artist couple. can't find RSs that establish WP:ARTIST, and given their significant work was produced in the 2010s, such RS should already exist. Cabrils (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cabrils: I have cited various RSs for LxsDos to prove notability i.e. "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work" AND "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers" per WP:ARTIST. In addition to a New York Times article and other periodicals, LxsDos are also featured in a Routledge Companion published book (cited on the page) and the other is an academic text titled "Exploring the Transnational Neighbourhood: Perspectives on Community-Building, Identity and Belonging." This latter text features an analysis of LxsDos's most notable work and their work is also the book's cover. Very perplexed as to why this is not enough. Is there a minimum amount required? Philomena7 (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Philomena7,

  Thanks for the information. Perhaps if you can provide WP:THREE that would help? For example, while Lxs Dos are mentioned and quoted in the NYT article, I'm not sure the content is sufficiently substantive to meet the requirement of being the "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews..." (my emphasis added)...? Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Noted! Thank you for this clarity. I have added another periodical source where it is the main source of the article. I am also new to writing articles, so I am still learning how much secondary source analysis is appropriate within the Wiki article itself. Would you be able to look over my new edits? Philomena7 (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Philomena7, that addition helps a lot.

  Could you please confirm you do not have a conflict of interest?

  Thanks, Cabrils (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No conflict of interest! My main motivation is that this article was part of a Wikipedia assignment for a university art history course I was enrolled in, and I dedicated time to learning about my assigned artist, finding sources, and learning Wikipedia’s writing approaches. So I’m invested in the sense that I want to make sure my project (even though I already got my grade for this last year) stays in mainspace. Philomena7 (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S I should also add that my grade had nothing to whether or not my article remained in mainspace. Contributing to Wikipedia just became something I was passionate about. Thanks for the input on my edits. Is there anything else I should edit/add? Philomena7 (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Philippines, Mexico, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I added a few sources to the article, which should be enough. Many sources about their sculpture in Coachella 2022. Sources from the New York Times, Cultured Magazine, Pulitzer Center, Los Angeles Daily News, Palm Springs Desert Sun, Press Entreprise. Also from books and a scholarly paper. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional baseball teams based in Fort Wayne, 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)

Unsourced list which seems to fail WP:NLIST. I find no independent reliable sources that justify this being a standalone list. Although each of these teams existed, that does not justify a list. If sources are added, this might be a merger candidate to the section History of Fort Wayne, Indiana. Without any sources, it's trivia that fails notability guidelines. Flibirigit (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Lists, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional baseball teams based in Davenport, Iowa (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)

Unsourced list which seems to fail WP:NLIST. I find no independent reliable sources that justify this being a standalone list. Although each of these teams existed, that does not justify a list. If sources are added, this might be a merger candidate to History of Davenport, Iowa. Without any sources, it's trivia that fails notability guidelines. Flibirigit (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Lists, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Tunguliyadi (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 this footballer plays in the premier league and seems likely to be notable in the future, I've been unable to find sources to establish notability now; the page cites a database entry and a social media post, and nothing better turns up on my search. — Moriwen (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. — Moriwen (talk) 23:52, 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – The coverage in Russian sources looks enough to WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. 0 league games is a big problem, and there is also a problem with reliability of the sources. Geschichte (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm ok with draftfying this one too. Svartner (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Greece and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:44, 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]

Holafly (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 appears to be a basic summary of a non-notable commercial operation - no assertion of notability is made, and the service it provides is routine / non-innovative. A mention in a list of eSIM operators would seem sufficient. SeoR (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SeoR (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Spain. MarioGom (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]