Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 9

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      May 9 (Fri)      May 8 (Thu)      May 7 (Wed)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Neli Sabeva (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 and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Bulgaria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A quick Google News search [1] provides nothing. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 23:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Rowing Club (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 short stub & has a lot of issues. It doesn't even meet the notability criteria _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 16:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Olympics, and New Zealand. Skynxnex (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• At 120 years old, the club has been around. Could you please outline what you have done regarding WP:BEFORE, Ophyrius? Schwede66 08:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, Schwede66! I did a quick search on my search engine and all the content that was displayed was of other clubs. Only this article was this Wikipedia one that told about this specific club. Because of that I don't think this is as notable. But, I may be using a search engine other than yours. If you find any sources from there please tell. _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 03:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Well, we have digitised newspapers in New Zealand at PapersPast; mostly up to 1945 but some going as recent as 1989. When I search for the phrase "Hamilton Rowing Club" (i.e. not just the words, but the equivalent of searching for a string of words in quotation marks), I get 1,942 results. Much of that will be routine reporting, but I'm sure there will be some gems in there, too. If you weren't aware of PapersPast, you wouldn't have found those results; you have to search through their website directly. As such, I shall place a keep !vote. Schwede66 08:22, 4 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!} 23:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forum of Irish Postgraduate Medical Training Bodies (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 organisation. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. While, as expected by WP:NGO, the "scope of their activities is national [..] in scale", there is no indication that the org "has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization". Searches in national news outlets return only passing mentions. For example, a search in The Irish Times returns only passing mentions and "letters to the editor" by people associated with the org. A search on national broadcaster RTÉ 's website returns a single passing mention. A similar search across the entire Irish Independent stable of national/regional/local papers also only returns a single passing mention. Same goes for the Irish Examiner (4 passing mentions), and The Journal (2 passing mentions). Even a broad Google search returns barely 80 results (including the org's own website, socials, the above passing mentions in news articles, and random mentions in Facebook/LinkedIn posts and press releases). Not only is none of this useful in establishing notability, it is even insufficient to allow for expansion of this title beyond the bare sub-stub it has been for years. (Other than its own website, how would we source information on formation, dates, activities, etc?) In terms of WP:ATDs, given that the org isn't even mentioned once elsewhere on the project, I cannot conceive of an appropriate redirection (such that the org could be covered WP:WITHIN another title.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: or redirect to Medical education in Ireland. -- MarioGom (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah. Thanks. Hadn't spotted that title. FWIW, I'd personally (as nom) have no issue with a redirect to Medical_education_in_Ireland#Postgraduate_education (if that title had a short note/mention of the subject). Would seem a reasonable place to mention/cover the subject org... Guliolopez (talk) 08:40, 4 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!} 23:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balvinder Singh Suri (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 significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Badly sourced. Possible COI. Zuck28 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: - it depends on whether you consider his role in Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah significant enough to make him pass WP:NACTOR or have significant coverage of the same. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; noted roles in notable projects. I have attached three new news sources, and more are available on Google.

Afstromen (talk) 08:11, 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!} 23:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pujniya Raseshwari Devi (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)

Her only notable work is "involvement in the idol installation ceremonies" of some temples. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and fails wp:GNG / wp:ANYBIO. Zuck28 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Hinduism, India, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha. Zuck28 (talk) 19:15, 2 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!} 23:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZL Technologies (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 lacks any secondary sources and I was unable to find any with a cursory search. Brandon (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Brandon (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cannot find any secondary sources with significant coverage either. Definitely not meeting WP:NORG in my opinion. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete, ZL Tech meets the notability requirements.

  Here are some examples of coverage:

  NY Times

  Global News Wire

  Network World

  Gartner (unpaid) VSZLTI (talk) 23:35, 2 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!} 23:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Villa Canales bus disaster (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)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find coverage in English or Spanish beyond news reporting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Guatemala. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete: The above stated reason conforms with wiki standards and I find myself agreeing with their reasoning. Bgrus22 (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 54 people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:NEVENT. Systemic bias is an essay and it is not an excuse to ignore our notability guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that the previous AFD closed as Keep (and same nominator).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. One of the deadliest traffic accidents in Guatemala [2]. Still recognized as such through sustained coverage: 2009 [3], 2019 [4], 2025 [5][6]. If someone is up for expanding on the topic, I would recommend merging to a new article for Vuelta el Chilero, since this is a deadly spot that is very widely covered in Guatemalan press. MarioGom (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Jajarkot bus accident (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)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. The only retrospective coverage I can find is one sentence where it describes the response as only nominal. Everything else that comes up for me covers a different bus crash in Jajarkot from 2021. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Nepal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 47 people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:NEVENT. Systemic bias is an essay and it is not an excuse to ignore our notability guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:06, 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!} 23:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valea Lupului minibus train collision (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)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find significant secondary coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Romania. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I added several sources referring to this accident, which seems to have gotten quite a bit of coverage in the local (and even national) press. Turgidson (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 11 people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 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!} 23:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The accident was certainly notable: it was mentioned repeatedly in the Romanian press; it was considered to be one of the worst road-rail accidents in Romania in the preceding ten years (sources refer to it as a "carnage"); it led to a proposal in Parliament to improve the railway crossing (which has not been acted upon); and it is still mentioned in the national press to this day (references from 2023–2024). Turgidson (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Seems to be a bit of WP:LASTING there, and the article is well sourced for GNG, so I am not sure what's wrong. Govvy (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Dog Beach (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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Stonkaments (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced, and not notable enough to have a standalone article. Most of the article discusses topics that are only tangentially related. Better to merge the relevant information into Sato Project and/or Yabucoa, Puerto Rico. Stonkaments (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 3 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, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into Yabucoa, Puerto Rico ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I don't think subject passes WP:NPROF - he is asst. prof, h-index of 12 and no named chair or prestigious professional memberships I can locate. Although he is briefly quoted in a few news articles due to his association with digital rights group Article 19, I don't see anything that would qualify as WP:SIGCOV for WP:ANYBIO. He co-authored a book w/ over a dozen other people but I can only find one possibly independent review in a reliable source. WP:BEFORE was done in google news/books/scholar, JSTOR, newspapers.com, and PressReader (looking for Dutch and English sources). I don't see a clear merge/redirect target, and ultimately I think this might be WP:TOOSOON - as subject is still in relatively early days of his career (first publication was in 2017). Zzz plant (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Internet, and Netherlands. Zzz plant (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed on WP:NPROF. But this might qualify as WP:SIGCOV for WP:ANYBIO ? The work he has done with Mallory Knodel on oppressive language in the IETF got coverage in the New York Times ^[1], and the work he has done internet sanctions got covered in different places ^[2][3]. He also gets more widely cited about internet infrastructure governance issues, most notably outages in Wired ^[4] and The Face ^[5], on internet history and Web3 in the New Scientist ^[6], and on history of e-mail in Vox ^[7]. Seems to have more coverage in Dutch media. Detlevore (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply from nom - my rationale was that in most of the coverage linked above he is just quoted (i.e. if you ctrl+f his (first/sur)name you find basically 1-2 results). As it doesn't really go in-depth about him specifically, I didn't consider it sigcov. It's very impressive to have your work mentioned in prestigious publications so early in career, I'm just not sure it confers notability. Zzz plant (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No pass of WP:Prof Assistant professors are almost never notable for WP:Prof and this is no exception. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - It's too soon for this emerging academic. The low h-index score indicates that they are not notable per WP criteria WP:PROF nor do they meet WP:GNG at this time. Perhaps in a few years after there is more attention to his work and research. Netherzone (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that makes sense! Detlevore (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see how he would be notable at present. gidonb (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marlborough City Council (Massachusetts) (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 city council of a community of less that 50,000 residents. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Complete failure of WP:ORG. Nothing but run-of-the-mill routine coverage in narrow local outlets. Ravenswing 09:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maung Sein Pe (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 WP:SIGCOV. Recommend possibly redirecting this to Burma at the 1948 Summer Olympics. Let'srun (talk) 21:11, 9 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 Myanmar. Let'srun (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Burma at the 1948 Summer Olympics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable athlete, the name hits a few times in Gbooks, but it's about students or university publications, nothing for an athlete. We have no sourcing other than what's in the article, with only a database listing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I added additional sourcing to the article. Subject placed 6th at the Asian Games finals, was reportedly a member of Burmese nobility, and was written about in prose by olympstats.com noting how difficult it is to find information about Burmese subjects. I agree that additional sources are needed, but there are plenty of loose threads that need investigating here, for example whether he was the same personal as the Asian Games football medalist: Special:WhatLinksHere/Sein Pe. Notability is always determined by the existence of sources, never only their presence cited in articles. --Habst (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kouami N'Dri (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:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only reference currently in the article is a database, while a search for sources elsewhere came up empty. Let'srun (talk) 20:55, 9 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 Ivory Coast. Let'srun (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I added additional sourcing to the article. Subject was an African Games medalist satisfying WP:NATH prongs 2 and 1. More importantly, he would have been covered in Ivorian newspapers from the 1970s but they aren't accessible to us; of the ones with Wikipedia articles,

• Fraternité Matin: Online archive only goes back to 2019
• Notre Voie: Website not functional

The issue here is only one of availability, not existence, and notability is always determined by the existence of sources and not their presence in the article. --Habst (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Simmons (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)

As a judge she is not automatically notable as her highest permanent position was serving on the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals. She also held an academic role, but was only an adjunct professor, and press appearances are to do with her appointment as a judge in 2003 and a court election she lost in 2018. I also couldn't verify the claim she was once a special justice of the Texas Supreme Court.

In other words, they are generally brief mentions; there does not seem to be significant secondary source coverage that would justify retaining the article on GNG grounds. I did find this 2014 article, but I'm still not sure that's enough. Leonstojka (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Women. Leonstojka (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably delete Not a key figure by any measure. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I also agree that there is not enough material/coverage to justify keeping the article. Stickymatch 01:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while she has accomplished some things, the sourcing about her is terrible - 2 local news articles and a press release. That's far below significant coverage. The bit about her family screams "order in the court" of BLP. Three years ago, someone inexplicably assessed this as Start. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Increase Carpenter (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. No real claim to notability, most of the article not about subject. Almost all of the info on Carpenter comes from the first source, which is of dubious value. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. If you find an old book source, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliano Coitiño (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)

Uruguayan footballer who has not played a game in several years. The only coverage outside of passing mentions that I found was this injury update. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. JTtheOG (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Uruguay. JTtheOG (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state welcome signs (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)

A dictionary definition of a welcome sign, followed by a gallery. Fails to establish notability. See also: WP:NOTGALLERY. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Many of these photos are also copyvios. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep per WP:NLIST. There are sources for this group of things: "50 state road trip: State welcome signs" and "State welcome signs from around the USA", both USA Today; "Which U.S. State Welcome Sign Is The Best?", BuzzFeed; "50 Welcome Signs for the 50 United States of America", Condé Nast Traveler; "The Welcome Sign from Every State in America", Reader's Digest. Who would've guessed it? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a textbook case of WP:NOTGALLERY. I don't buy the copyvio argument above (except maybe with one or two exceptions), but that's really beside the point. At best, this belongs on Commons. There's no way to verify that these are current, or that a state doesn't use multiple variants, etc. -- just a bunch of (often low quality) snapshots of these things. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teng Lin (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 fails WP:NACTOR. All sources are none WP:RS Ednabrenze (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i've add links to biographical data, the sources can only be found in his own social media livestream as short drama actors info are in general lacking online. I've included the link and even the timestamp at which he mentioned those biographical data Laiwingnang (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and China. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also want to mention such info are usually hard to come by because short drama actors are not signed to any publicist or angecies..so they don't have staff to register them with movie databases, fans have to get that info from their livestreams, from social media, but fact is short vertical dramas are highly popular in china with hundreds of millions views/social media engagement and are now being seen by millions on youtube/tiktok internationally through many drama apps, they are more relevant than many mainstream actors from china. Laiwingnang (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

added a reference for his short dramas, they are listed in a WeChat application named WeTrue. It's a market data research company used by short drama industry insiders...but it is a built in app inside china's wechat and requires a wechat app installation to access the data. A link to their www feed page is added, any link on that page will give you a link to the wetrue application, upon clicking the application link will launch the data application on wechat. Laiwingnang (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has he been profiled in any reliable sources such as newspapers or magazines? Cunard (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. I found a passing mention here and a self-published source here. Teng Lin (Chinese: 滕林) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  the industry used wechat app wetrue is a more reliable source than the ones you mentioned, it's the imdb for chinese short dramas. What you referenced are mainstream news outlet paid to write articles for agencies to hype up their stars. It's pay per play. Fact is Teng Lin is at 200k followers on china's douyin with an total of over 3 million likes and many chart topping popular short drama just in the last 12 months, many of the c-list musicians, actors who doesn't have a hit with next to no followers get to have a wikipage because their agency pumps articles about them and register them with all types of websites. China isn't America, they are not stuck in the www page age, apps like weTrue or dataeye are used by millions of drama fans and industry insiders for chart data and new releases. They are more reliable sources even if they aren't through http. They don't rely on www page that probably gets like 50 clicks. That's really an American thing. Laiwingnang (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  also want to mention, his short film trailers have millions of views on tiktok...he's not only relevant within, china, but also internationally. His recent dramas are getting subbed by kalostv, reelflicks, flicksreel and other drama apps and many are amongst the most watched short dramas internationally. Alot of activities are happening on apps , www news site gatekeeping pay per play is 2010s. Laiwingnang (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  spotify is on app, social media is on apps, netflix in on apps, in 2025, most of what the public consume is on apps, so should short drama apps like wetrue or dataeye be considered as legit sources as well Laiwingnang (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  https://www.52hrtt.com/ey/n/w/info/G1732591212530

  if you want a www article, here's one...the first short drama awards and Teng Lin won one of the 3 actor awards. He's one of the top short drama actors , doesn't make him less relevant just because he doesn't have an agency to pay for written articles Laiwingnang (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  he's also on douban, china's imdb ....so googling might not show you results, but it's there

  https://movie.douban.com/celebrity/1563988/movies?sortby=time&format=pic&role=A1 Laiwingnang (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  here's another stock exchange listed entertainment info company https://ir-en.maoyan.com/ that has teng lin listed https://m.maoyan.com/asgard/celebrity/3071840

  so it's not true that his info isn't on the internet, it's google's algo that isn't giving search results Laiwingnang (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Barry (wrestler) (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 independent wrestler. Worked mainly on regional promotions. Sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE results. No in-deep coverage around him from third party sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No indication of notability for this indie wrestler. Please ping me if coverage is found. JTtheOG (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JTtheOG I don't care either way but I found this [7] is it any use? Anxioustoavoid (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really, since most of it consists of quotes from the subject himself. JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. That's the best I could find so on that basis I will go Delete. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and let us hope he does not choke anyone. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Yamada (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 seems entirely pulled from BLP's IMDb page. livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers. livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Article seems entirely pulled from BLP's IMDb page" is just a completely untrue accusation, this is demonstrable by the sourcing. Yamada has been part of several noteworthy productions in prominent roles, the subject passes WP:N. A complete rushjob of an AFD for a page barely an hour into existence, no time to even address potential notability qualms, nor the barrage of other grievances from the nominator. Nominator also failed to notify me about this nomination, had to see it on my watchlist. Rusted AutoParts 17:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entirety of the "Filmography" section is pulled from IMDb, especially considering the non-Filmography portions do not contain citations for certain roles and/or information in the article. There is no reliable, third-party sourcing specific episode numbers Yamada has been in for The Bold and the Beautiful; that is a copyright vio, and also in violation of WP:IMDb/BLP. livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ....That's literally the format of *any* filmography table, listing someone's filmography in chronical order is not owned by IMDB. You know this, you'd edited articles that have the exact same tables, yet have not seen the same grievance like you're airing here. Rusted AutoParts 18:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Delete - Doesn't pass WP:ENT. Coverage is low, mostly from soap opera websites and magazines, and mostly about her character and not about her, so it doesn't pass WP:NBIO either. However Deadline Hollywood WP:RSPDEADLINE is considered a RS and has a few articles mentioning her. I did found [8] in abc.com, but it's not ABC News, it's a about the actress in a show. CBS, ABC and Deadline could be enough. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk)

I feel she satisifies ENT. She's a main role in Bold and the Beautiful, was a main role in Cruel Summer, and has been cast in a prominent recurring role in Elle. Perhaps there's a larger threshold needing to be crossed in terms of how many productions, but I feel this does demonstrate her as a notable name. Rusted AutoParts 18:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't found more sources. I'm convinced the article doesn't pass WP:NBIO. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering her roles in The Bold and the Beautiful and Cruel Summer, in addition to all the more minor roles, how does she fail WP:ENT? Mooonswimmer 07:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR states "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". One main role in a notable TV show (The Bold and the Beautiful), one main role in a moderate TV show (7 episodes in Cruel Summer) and some other minor roles hardly qualify to meet WP:NACTOR. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to pass WP:NACTOR to me, considering her roles in The Bold and the Beautiful and Cruel Summer. Mooonswimmer 07:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxylabs (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)

Poor sourcing, fails WP:GNG. Noting that some review articles exist about Oxylabs, although they appear to contain multiple affiliate links. The only piece of significant coverage I'm seeing about the company exists in the form of this TechRadar article about a lawsuit.^[1] 30Four (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lithuania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. No RS, no SIGCOV. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: It is among the most notable residential proxy providers, along with Luminati. There's quite some technical discussion and brief company description in a book [9] published by O'Reilly Media, which is one of the top publishers in its category. There's also mentions in a lot of papers like [10] or [11], including significant technical discussion involving independent research of its network [12]. Also an in-depth review at PCMag [13]. And the source mentioned in the nomination. In terms of WP:ORGDEPTH, it seems a bit borderline though. MarioGom (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no majr coverage. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article was flagged a few years back for questionable notability, and since then no major improvement has taken place to demonstrate the subject meets the criteria. I have the following concerns:

• I have been unable to verify the claim that he sold a company for upwards of $100 million (in other places, the claim is various companies for $300 million)
• While his book has numerous ratings, I cannot locate reviews in major publications, just blogs. The Huffington Post story referenced in this article was written by Blake himself.
• The article is overly reliant on primary sources, and I couldn't find significant secondary source coverage. The closest thing was a brief 2012 Forbes online article written by a fellow entrepreneur/self help type (see here) and a story in a regional newspaper in Wales describing his 'rags to riches' life story. I also checked the archived version of his website (current one isn't working for me, or the website of his most recent venture for that matter) and could not his verify his claim that his book had been profiled by the Wall Street Journal.

• Addendum - This isn't strictly related to the question of notability, but further research of the article subject doesn't do much to discourage my impression this is an article (in its current form at least) there for promotional purposes and that the prowess of Blake as an entrepreneur may be exaggerated. Further detail: this donor profile of Blake has some questionable statements that raised an eyebrow, notably that he was one of only 6 recruits to graduate from his class of 200 at Britannia Royal Naval College (an utterly absurd claim) and that he has signed a deal to turn his first book into a movie. Leonstojka (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. Leonstojka (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No SIGCOV, WP:NBIO or WP:GNG aren't met. Only primary sources in the article. I did find a mentions on a couple of business news sites, which doesn't seem reliable enough. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: not a major player with enough coverage. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if not spam, why does it look like that? Subject has a documented history of extraordinary claims without commensurate evidence. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

God Is Good (Forrest Frank and Caleb Gordon song) (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)

Redirect to Child of God (album). Despite charting, the song is not covered in reliable sources, thus failing WP:NSONG. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 17:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. No WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - No SIGCOV in RS. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

just appearing in a media briefing is not enough to merit a wikipedia article — Awsib (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Awsib (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Too PROMO, simply speaking with the media isn't enough for notability... Most articles used for sourcing are either interviews or talking about the press conference. Appears to have had a routine military career otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Page does not fly. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: This is the most hot topic right now. You can find dozens of many significant noteble coverage about Vyomika Singh on Google. Easily meet WP:GNG. atcar10:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Very important person related to one of the most discussed current affairs. Aniruddh 07:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It is too early to have an article on this subject. Orientls (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Wikipedia's aim is to benefit the readers by providing information of the trending subject. CharlieChoudhary (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, no it's not. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability beyond appearance at a press conference. The people voting "keep" above claim that Wikipedia is for "trending subjects" "current affairs" or "hot topic" issues, which is clearly incorrect. Little Professor (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge with 2025 India–Pakistan conflict: Subject is BLP1E at this point and the coverage is routine. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable enough for appearing in the screen for one event, didn't participate directly. If the person was a one star general or above, it could have been kept.

𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 20:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There Is a lot of media coverage which makes it notable, even though it is all on one day. Dualpendel (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- While notable given the current context, does not warrant an article pending further developments or contributions. The quality of the article as is is also lacking and subject to misinformation.

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - "hot topic" is another way of saying he's in today's news cycle. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As is "even though it is all on one day." Bearian (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Book of the Week (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. WP:NOTTVGUIDE. There are news articles that mention books appearing on the show, but they are stubby program-guide type articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with BBC Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't think there'd be room for this in an article about the BBC as a whole (this is not a statement on whether I think this subject is notable, just a comment on the above post). RobinCarmody (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cresco, 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)

At least looking at the maps, Cresco didn't grow, and as you might expect from the post office dates, according to this county history, that's all it ever was. Mangoe (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only one passing mention found, outside of WP mirror sites and sites that obviously scrape WP data. Fails WP:NPLACE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPLACE. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. 7–0 Manchester United F.C. (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 not convinced by the lasting notability of this match. Although it was Liverpool's biggest win against Manchester United, it's not an overall club record win, and I'm not sure we need to memorialise any club's biggest ever defeat. The fact that Mohamed Salah also set a club record for Premier League goals is also not really something that needs a whole article about it. The result had no impact on the destination of the Premier League title, since Liverpool finished in fifth and Manchester United finished in third, significanly behind winners Manchester City. The "Aftermath" section of the article also fails to hit home the long-term impact of the match. It was a big result between two rivals, but it's had very little lasting coverage due to the limited scope of the match's impact. – PeeJay 15:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 15:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This article was deleted the first time I nominated it two years ago, so I'm not sure how it's managed to make its way back into mainspace. Literally nothing has changed about the circumstances of the match. – PeeJay 15:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication of lasting coverage, I could not find anything. High score does not equal notability Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry – The match has notability to be a section of the main article. Svartner (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect as suggested above. GiantSnowman 18:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No SIGCOV since the time of the event. No aftermath. No notablility proven. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article it was a memorable win for Liverpool in the Premier League against one of their main rivals 81.102.141.5 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monserrate Román (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)

Retired mid-level program manager at NASA. Just as a university Dean is not automatically notable, I don't see how her prior position by itself passes notability. Google Scholar (MC Roman) yields only 1-3 cites for her publications, so she does not pass WP:NPROF#C1. All awards are internal, so I don't see them as proof. No WP:SIGCOV, just a few routine mentions. Page was a long unsourced essay, and current version (trimmed by nom) has little that is notable. While I am sure she played a role in developing the space station, I don't see enough. (I am willing to be proved wrong.) Ldm1954 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Spaceflight, and Puerto Rico. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with the above reasoning. I also did a search and the best thing I could find was a 2003 article from Spacenews.com that wasn't even an original story, but a press release, as well as this brief mention from the ASBMB. Leonstojka (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep several sources and several awards, so I am leaning keep. Andre🚐 19:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I agree that her publications do not meet WP:PROF, but a 2021 book (Wonder Women of Science) includes 13 pages on Roman. She is also a recipient of NASA's Silver Snoopy Award which is given to 1% of people in aerospace. This information is now more clearly presented in the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable. She helped ensure safe recycling of air and water in space. She later led NASA's Centennial Challenges Program. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jointness (psychodynamics) (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 text fails to show notability and does not have reliable sources, especially not secondary ones - for the largest part it is based on primary sources that were all written by the same author (Ronnie Solan). This article is What Wikipedia is not: written like an essay instead of an article. Almost 90% of the text was written by one editor: user:Rhazs who also in their few edits to other pages promoted Solan's view. Lova Falk (talk) 14:41, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete . Solan, Solan and Solan as sources, no go. So long... Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Arts Sandbox (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 Clenpr (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Project Support Environment (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 Clenpr (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - see the original ref plus 2 more added just now. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Fusion Collective (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)

Short lived team with no significant achievements. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Wrestling. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have made a quick search. [14] Lack of in-deep coverage around the stable. Mostly WP:ROUTINE --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sonya Deville#Various alliances (2021–2025). Does not qualify as an article, but the stable was a part of career of Sonya Deville, Shayna Baszler, and Zoey Stark. Two reasons to keep the redirect: 1) Readers search for it and they look for some info about this stable 2) Like many stables/groups in WWE, there could be a chance for the revival of this stable in the future with new members. A redirect and summary works better for this case. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glamarella (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)

Tag team lasting less than a year with very few notable appearances. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Wrestling. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Command verb (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 Clenpr (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: there is wide usage of this term in human-computer interaction, but not so much coverage specifically about it. Also used in linguistics and religion, apparently, so there's no really good redirect target. MarioGom (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SIS (file format) (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 Clenpr (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable. I just added 4 references found using the Google Scholar and Google Books link on this page above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Symbian, without prejudice of re-creation with proper sources and references. In its current form, this is an article that should have gone through WP:BLAR easily. MarioGom (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

L Franchise (film series) (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 significant coverage on sources as a film series; nor for a third film, which seems to be WP:CRYSTAL speculation at this point. Vestrian24Bio 10:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Vestrian24Bio 10:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom and WP:NFF. — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Franchise includes Lucifer (2019) and L2: Empuraan (2025), two of the highest-grossing Malayalam film series, with significant coverage in dependable sources. Meets WP:NFILM as well through substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources, such as reviews and box-office analyses for Lucifer and promotional coverage for L2: Empuraan in outlets like Times of India and Indian Express. WP:NFILM does not require a franchise to have a certain number of films to be notable. WP:CRYSTAL would only apply if the article includes unverified predictions or details about future developments. I guess you would argue the third film, L3: The Beginning. A source could be added about production information or a release date. Though, I'm still voting to keep this article. Editz2341231 (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The films are notable per WP:NFILM, but no source discusses the franchise in substantial coverage. Vestrian24Bio 04:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CrossCrypt (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 Clenpr (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Searching didn't turn up anything for this to meet WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. No SIGCOV. Doesn't meet WP:N. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no way. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - my own search turned up only passing mentions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Liversidge (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 significant coverage found in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC, let alone WP:GNG. The TV show he was on, Round the Twist is notable, but his role in it for two seasons is not. Checked Google and ProQuest which yielded 4 hits (cast lists and passing mentions, plus "contributes a wicked March Hare and terrific Humpty Dumpty" in a 2009 review in The Age). Cielquiparle (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Australia. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considered redirecting to Round the Twist but that article does not mention the actor or his role. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does mention his role, Anthony, in Round the Twist#Characters#Other. That section doesn't name any actors, though - but maybe more characters and actors could be added to the Round the Twist#Casting table. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No SIGCOV. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. Couldn't find any RS about him other than his minor role. Primary sources only. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brunsky (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. Single refs doesn't contain his name (at the end of doc). Fails WP:NSINGER, WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 07:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Merited Artist of Ukraine – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It would then be eligible for WP:RFD since Brunsky is not mentioned at that page Geschichte (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found some coverage in Ukrainian but I regionally blocked from accessing any of it. Can you check them (also other coverage specifically using Cyrillic key words): [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CryptLoad (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 Clenpr (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - my own search didn't turn up anything. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: couldn't find anything for this to meet WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

All of the sources are WP:PASSINGMENTION, Data bases or unreliable. Before search yield nothing. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES - the subject was mayor of a state capital of over 100,000 residents, and so is likely to be notable. This is comparable with a mayor of Albany, New York. By comparison, we recently deleted the article of the mayor of Schenectady, New York, a smaller city that is not the state capital, but is still the 9th largest city in my state. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per Bearian's argument, as mayor of a region with population over 100,000. Though I will note that the sources used that describe him in any detail, here and on Tagalog Wikipedia, are of poor quality, mostly being Facebook posts and Wordpress. -- Reconrabbit 15:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JOSSO (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 Clenpr (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I have added 2 refs. One is a journal article and the other is a book chapter however the book is published by IGI Global which has a poor reputation. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Springhill, Dublin (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)

Entirely unsourced. If references could be found to make any of this notable, it could be included in Garristown. My general and News Google searches don't seem to assist. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It is entirely unclear what the intended subject is here. The original author claims (without references) that "Springhill is a tiny community, with around six tightly grouped houses". If that is an accurate description of the intended subject, then it is unlikely to meet WP:NPLACE. None of the links in the article support the text (many do not even mention a place called Springhill) and therefore cannot be used to support a claim to notability. Or, frankly, even help figure-out what that actual subject is or was intended to be. The only place that I can find (using OR and Google Maps) to even make a GUESS as to what the intended subject is this this area of Grallagh townland in Grallagh civil parish. Which is marked on Google Maps as "Springhill". And which is "nearby Grallagh graveyard" (as given in the body) and also near the former site of "Wyanstown House" (also mentioned in the body). And appears to have some kind of equestrian facility (as mentioned in the body). HOWEVER, we should NOT HAVE TO RELY on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to guess/establish what the author was possibly referring to. And, even if that was the intended subject, the "official" name of this area (townland/civil parish/etc) appears to be Grallagh. Not "Springhill". (FYI. I note that there is a "Springhill" townland, of approximately 63 acres, in the civil parish of Cloghran (Coolock). However, this appears to be an entirely different subject to the one intended by the author. Being at least 25km away in a completely different part of the county. And, while we could perhaps re-scope this title to cover that subject I note that (a) the small townland contains just one home and some fields and doesn't meet NGEO, and (b) if we wanted to do this then WP:STARTOVER would likely apply). In short: I agree with the nom. There are no sources to establish notability. Or even to establish what the intended topic is/was. The EN Wikipedia project is not improved (and is likely disadvantaged) by having such an article. Guliolopez (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft InterConnect (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 Clenpr (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there was a book written about it in Japanese ^{(translation)}. Otherwise I'm finding nothing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Microsoft 365 applications and services. This is a discontinued product that was marketed only in Japan, so mostly unknown outside the country. It does not seem to meet WP:NPRODUCT, but it can be assumed to meet the inclusion criteria for the product list. MarioGom (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Microsoft 365 applications and services per MarioGom and my own search above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Gabriel (actress) (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 does not meet WP:GNG. There is no evidence of significant, independent coverage from reliable sources to establish a lasting impact in the field. Most references appear to be minor news snippets, social media, or self-published material, which do not qualify as substantial verification under Wikipedia's standards. Without additional, credible sources demonstrating notable achievements or career recognition. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Lists of people, Business, Philippines, and Spain. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims are demonstrably false. Reverse this unjustified nomination for deletion. You have claimed multiple falsehoods which are against the Community Guidelines of Wikipedia.

To clarify:

List of nationally and internationally distributed news organizations referenced in the article:

- The Inquirer.net

- The Philippine Star

- ABS-CBN News

- the Manila Bulletin

- Mega magazine

- Philstar.com

- PEP. Ph

All sources explicitly note Stacey Gabriel and her notable activities.

---

Meanwhile your claims of "self published" material being used is false. Note an example of it or kindly retract your false claim. If you cannot back up this claim, nor retract it, your submission will be flagged as an abuse of Wikipedia policy.

---

"Without additional, credible sources demonstrating notable achievements or career recognition"

Multiple independent sources outline dozens of TV series episodes Stacey participated in, as well as her participation and placing 1st Runner-Up in the 2024 Miss Universe Philippines competition are noted. This is in addition to her success in the national Binibining Pilipinas pageant.

Are these not notable?

---

"social media"

There are no social media references in this article.

---

Given no evidence to support this unjustified action, reverse this flagrantly unjustified and deceptive nomination for deletion. Mickfir (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Mickfir,

I want to clarify that the nomination was made in good faith, based on a review of the article’s current sourcing and in line with WP:GNG and WP:BIO some of the listed sources are reliable, and this Afd only for english version. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why include false claims that social media and self published material was used as references? There is not a single referenced source that was self published nor any reference to social media. This is a harmful oversight at best and deliberately deceptive at worst.

As for notability... I repeat, dozens of interdependently verified TV Episode performances and multiple national pageants including Miss Universe Philippines as 1st Runner-up. Mickfir (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me check! WP:AFD is not only for deletion it's a basic procedure to determine whether an article is suitable for Wikipedia. Many contributors will review it and vote, so there's no need to panic just let the contributors decide.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Let me check" ? You nominated this article for deletion without even checking if the claims you are making against it are true?

Perhaps this article is worth a read: Wikipedia:Don't lie

"basic procedure to determine whether an article is suitable for Wikipedia"

No. Wikipedia best practice clearly indicates that if an article has areas for improvement, the 'Talk' page should be used to suggest edits, or you make the edits yourself.

Nominating an article for deletion based on false claims is a flagrant abuse of Wikipedia recommended practice. Mickfir (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources like ABS-CBN News, The Philippine Star, Manila Bulletin, and others mentioned by Mickfir are reliable. But some, like IMDb, aren't and should be removed. — doclys (❀) 18:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli plan to occupy and flatten all of Gaza (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)

Name is not official, leaves this article open to POV problems. Information seems to be a fork of Gaza war#Post-war plans. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Obvious POV problems — Czello ^(music) 13:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: POV issues, and for the 4 lines of text, this can be incorporated into an article on the war. Not sure this is notable enough for a stand-alone article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. Mooonswimmer 14:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: POV problems, far too specific a topic. Any content of merit can be (neutrally) included in Gaza war#Israeli leaders' plans. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:SPECULATION. Israel may or may not have a plan. But until it comes to fruition, it's just one more speculation about an ever changing situation in the middle east. — Maile (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: POV issues. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:CRYSTAL and POV issues. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: While we can probably make an article covering the government's intentions of expulsion, dispossession and conquest, with appearances of the opinions of (self-described) fascists like Smotrich, having the article title as it currently is would not pass. If we are to create such an article, draft spacing it first so we have something substantially written to put out would be the best course of action, in my opinion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete, This is a bad fork with some pretty obvious issues with point of view and a near-WP:PEACOCK title. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. This is an obvious WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV violation. MidnightMayhem 03:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per almost everyone above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a POVFORK of Gaza war. We do have articles discussing every aspect of this war. Maybe the article was made as POINT? Do not redirect as even the name is POV and OR. gidonb (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. The topic is highly notable but WP:SPLIT is unjustified; the content should be integrated into existing relevant articles. Probably a sentence or two can go into the section Gaza genocide#Genocidal intent and/or Palestinian genocide accusation. If Crampcomes has kept the wikisource, then there won't be much practical difference between a delete and a merger - a plain copy/paste won't make sense in any case. If there is no opposition at Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation, then creating a new 5th level ===== sub^4-section there would likely be justified. Boud (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to whatever the main article covering the topic is. MarioGom (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This page was a longtime redirect to Monarchy of Belgium#Royal family, where the content is already covered. Breaking this out as a standalone page creates a WP:CONTENTFORK that does not have independent notability per WP:GNG; there is no coverage of the "House of Belgium" apart from the Belgian monarchy, in large part since there has been no period in which the House of Belgium has been separate from the throne of Belgium. Since an earlier WP:BOLD effort to restore the redirect was reverted, I am seeking community consensus to restore the redirect to Monarchy of Belgium#Royal family and avoid a content fork. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Belgium. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Belgium should be held to the same standard as the House of Windsor, which also does not exist 'separate' from the throne of the United Kingdom. USA1855 (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: (1) We do not rely on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments at AfD; we look to the notability of the subject in front of us, and (2) even if we did, the House of Windsor is the royal house of several other sovereign realms (Canada, Australia, NZ, etc) and therefore would not be able to treated encyclopedically within an article on the British monarchy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On that argument the following pages should also be deleted:

Alawi dynasty

House of Bolkiah

Chakri dynasty

House of Dlamini

House of Khalifa

House of Nahyan

House of Norodom

House of Sabah

House of Thani

Wangchuck dynasty

et cetera

Surely, you do not advocate for that? The number of sovereign realms that a dynasty controls is not used as means for establishing notability. USA1855 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS if you haven't yet. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?

"However, such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency."

Nearly every other that only ever ruled over one sovereign state has a page. Why is the House of Belgium different? USA1855 (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the House of Moshoeshoe of Lesotho is also a redirect so it's not a sole outlier. But the thing with the House of Belgium is that it is a continuation of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, simply renamed to refer to the King of the Belgians and his family, and so anyone seeking to build out a standalone article would need to find sourcing discussing the House as distinct from the monarchy, sourcing that exists for the other articles you listed. Right now you have three sources: a primary source treaty document, a primary source text on World War I that does not mention "House of Belgium" and a brochure on the Belgian monarchy that also does not mention the "House of Belgium." This is not the makings of a case for passing WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Just another internet meme that has very little actual WP:RS coverage. Does not meet any of the WP:WEBCRIT, failing WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 13:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Let Know Your Meme take care of this stuff – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 13:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 13:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Italian brainrot. All of the RS coverage that I can find discusses the character as an example of the broader "Italian brainrot" trend, e.g. this article in Wired. I can't find anything that discusses "Bombardino Crocodilo" itself in any real detail independent of that wider trend. I don't see any reason why this character can't be sufficiently covered within the article Italian brainrot. MCE89 (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per MCE89. --Bedivere (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and it's spelt "Bombardiro". Bedivere (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Italian brainrot: Not notable on it's own. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. No SIGCOV in RS, only meme, blogs or other minor sites. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meherullanagar 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)

A minor railway station with no major coverage. The only existing mentions are either primary or surface coverage on map/travel sites. Fails WP:GNG. Garsh (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom Somajyoti ✉ 19:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:NTRAINSTATION "Train stations have no inherent notability". — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhwinder Panchhi (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)

Clearly non notable. Doesn’t satisfy any notability criteria. Also i checked on google but found nothing. Afstromen (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Authors, Bands and musicians, Music, Asia, India, and Punjab. Afstromen (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No SIGCOV in RS, only music streaming sites, YT. Doesn't meet WP:NENT — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Piette (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 page is pretty much a list of the man's works with no other analysis of the subject matter. There's no section on his personal life, views, etc. Would be OK revoking this RFD if these concerns were addressed but with the article as is, I don't know if this is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 13:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Religion. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 13:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to easily pass WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. I disagree with the idea that "analysis of the subject matter" requires us to have sections on his personal life or views. For an article about an influential academic/author, a list of notable works and an explanation of their contribution to their field of scholarship is exactly what an article should contain. In terms of notability, I found at least two journal articles directly addressing his body of work: Albert Piette and lived (non-)religion: Conceptual and methodological considerations and The Minor Mode: Albert Piette and the Reshaping of Anthropology. I expect that there is much more to be found in French. An extremely cursory search also turned up a large number of reviews of his books [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28], giving him a pass of NAUTHOR criteria 3. MCE89 (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Understood. But that begs the question, why were those sources not added in the first place? Surely the person who created the article should have done their research and added them if they're as reliable as you say they are. Or perhaps there's a good reason why they weren't there. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 14:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, the article was created in 2009. The standards for article quality and for notability were very different back then, and none of the sources I linked above had even been written yet at that point. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at when you say "perhaps there's a good reason why they weren't there". Are you suggesting that I'm somehow misrepresenting the sources? MCE89 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No I am not. And the sources not existing at the time is a good reason for them not to have been cited in the article, thanks for bringing that up! Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 19:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Book reviews in the comment above are enough to pass AUTHOR and likely scholarly/academic notability. This person is indexed in 8 national libraries, also hinting at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and to the nom, WP:SOFIXIT (or at least conduct a good WP:BEFORE) prior to attempting to delete an article that clearly plausibly asserts notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Notability as an academic is low, h-index is low [29]. Number of books doesn't qualify for being a monumental amount of work. Not widely cited by peers. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I see nothing mentioning this anywhere and cannot find anything to back up anything in this article. Fails WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The main source for this article was the Dictionary of Turkish Legends, which was deleted (in what I think is not a great move) because the linked PDF was hosted on Wikipedia. See p. 24. I don't know how to effectively search for reliable sources in Turkish to find any more useful info. -- Reconrabbit 14:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Dhillon (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 doesn’t have any reliable source to establish notability. Sources in the article are unreliable. Clearly non notable. Afstromen (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Authors, Bands and musicians, Music, Asia, India, and Punjab. Afstromen (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Moore Vidyapith, Mavelikkara (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)

A merge to Kallumala#Education was contested, but as a new page reviewer I could not find any WP:SIGCOV of this school to warrant a pass WP:GNG, just WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA stories ([30]) that read as promo. The sources in the article are solely the school's own website. Encyclopedic content has already been merged, so I am seeking consensus to restore a redirect to Kallumala#Education. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Kerala. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A simiar search reveals no WP:SGCOV in the literature or news outlets. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL without any reliable independent coverage. --hroest 14:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (I boldly performed the limited merge): independent sigcov not found. Redirection to location is a standard WP:ATD for schools where article is not retained (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Kiley (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 musical theatre actor. There are online reviews for a few things he has been featured in (for example, a Jack and the Beanstalk pantomime), but most results are just passing mentions in casting annoucements etc - there was also an article he wrote for The Independent about Alan Turing getting put on a new banknote.

In other words, no significant secondary coverage. Leonstojka (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus Mundus in International Law of Global Security, Peace and Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:ADMASQ of a specific degree programme with not much in sourcing (both on wiki and a BEFORE) beyond non-independent and primary sourcing, nothing that I can find that demonstrates significant coverage of the topic. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect (Sam i song) (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 fails WP:NSONG and a cursory search does not reveal anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freaks Like You (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 fails WP:NSONG and there are no sources to establish WP:GNG either. There are no critical reception, chart performances, etc, none that I can find from a cursory search. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Season of Darkness (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 fails WP:NALBUM and there are no sources to establish WP:GNG either. There are no critical reception, chart performances, etc, none that I can find from a cursory search. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Rizzi (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)

Not a notable person. Failes WP:SPORTCRIT, WP:BIO. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. Svartner (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – No significant, major updates since article creation in 2010. Although offline sources may exist, we can't assume them to be the case. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I did a WP:BEFORE and didn't find anything about the player, just about a guitarist with the same name. Svartner (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Build3 (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)

Mildly promotional article on a lesser known company. No evidence that subject warrants an encyclopedic article, and somewhat fails WP:NCOMPANY. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. To provide some context, Build3 is a not-for-profit organization that is well-recognized within India’s early-stage entrepreneurial ecosystem. It has received organic coverage from reputable media outlets including The Hindu, Times of India, The Better India, and Money control. Happy to improve the tone or references if needed. Just wanted to clarify that the organization is notable and meets inclusion guidelines Desiapollo (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unable to find significant coverage from sources that don't run afoul of WP:RSNOI or WP:DEPENDENTCOVERAGE, even The Hindu[31] source currently used in the article does not credit an individual writer and reads like a reworded press release. WP:NCORP not passed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VFairs (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 company lacking significant, independent coverage. The two Business Insider articles cited are press releases, and the Mashable article seems to be sponsored. Remaining coverage is routine, non-independent, or limited to trivial recognitions. Mooonswimmer 10:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article was deleted by BusterD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just three hours into the nomination, but the reason given was simply a link to this nomination, which is normally done in conjunction with a traditional AfD closure after the usual seven days (not three hours). Based on the creator's talk page the article was tagged for G11 just before the AfD nomination was started (not by the same person), but I can't automatically assume that means a G11 deletion went forward anyway, or if the quick deletion was otherwise in error. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have restored the article to allow the AfD to run its course. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the undeletion. I deleted per the G11 tag, but am happy to see the subject properly discussed. BusterD (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freiburg-Madison-Society (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 organisation. No reliable sources. Promotional. See WP:NOT. Fails WP:NORG. Cabrils (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Germany, and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Can this be merged into one if the cities' article under "Twin cities" or the like? Bearian (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does every twinning agreement between every pair of cities in the world need a separate article? It should surely be enough to mention the twins in the articles on the cities concerned. Athel cb (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elmo Motion Control (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 company. WP:ROTM. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (selectively) into Bosch Rexroth. The company is a subsidiary of Bosh Rexroth, presently an underdeveloped article. While it could be claimed that Rexroth should be merged into its parent, Bosch, currently it has its own article. That article is desperately in need of some of the content and references of Elmo Motion. gidonb (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It doesn't seem to be notable enough to be kept unless by adding more related sources, or it could be merged ... 110 and 135 (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Barrow (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)

1. Chief Executives of County Councils don't seem to be inherently notable, as opposed to say, an elected politician serving as council leader.

2. The article resembles a pseudo-biography, as much of the content is dominated by an event/controversy that could be restricted to either the article on Lincolnshire County Council or Jim Speechley.

3. I was unable to locate significant secondary source coverage of the subject (all the hits revolved around the story at the heart of the article), and the career details in the article rely on a Who's Who entry. Leonstojka (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard C. 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)

As Sdkb and I discussed on article talk page, the only element of SIGCOV is the LA Times obit. While that might suggest that there is more coverage, searches on google/newspapers.com have not turned up any more, so we don't have GNG met here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can only find his name in an article about the company [32]. Still not enough sourcing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Frank Seaver, an article about his uncle and his uncle's company (WP:ATD-R), where I added the references from this article. "One sentence does not an article make." This source demonstrates how the subject was overshadowed by his uncle in regards to the Hydril Company, and therefore redirecting something like this is a common solution. Yes, the subject is a member of a prominent Southern California family, which was connected to an even more prominent Californian, Edward L. Doheny; however, even Doheny's children are not blue-linked in his article. The Daily Bulletin article is overwhelmingly about Frank; the Los Angeles Times obituary which mentions the subject's philanthropy of the arts (it's in the arts section), although different from a regular paid notice is still not enough to justify a dedicated article, per WP:GNG. I'm finding many passing mentions of the subject in connection with him chairing various fundraisers and sitting on committees (sometimes ones chaired by his aunt). However, I fail to see how any of this warrants a standalone article (stub). See also WP:PHILANTHROPIST, which advises against attaching this label to anyone who ever donated a substantial amount of money to a cause. StonyBrook _babble 22:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dashgin Iskandarov (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)

Not a notable person. Don't have any WP:SIGCOV, no credible academic profile to be found. Yousiphh (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the nom the subject does not have any notable coverage to sustain the article Scooby453w (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. No significant coverage, passing mentions at best. Leonstojka (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Syrian coup d'état attempt (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)

To reword what I previously wrote in the article's talk page, I believe that this article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS: it doesn't elaborate much on the subject (i.e. what exactly the plot was, who was involved in planning it, where was it planned to occur in, etc.), and since there doesn't seem to have been follow-up information about it (no WP:LASTING coverage), it looks to just be an example of WP:RECENTISM.

Alternatively, it could be merged into articles like Anas Khattab (career section), Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present), or Syrian transitional government (possible reforms section), but its vague enough that I don't know if it would be appropriate. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A literal coup attempt that was covered in the news. Scuba 03:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • WP:NOTNEWS - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    by that metric we shouldn't have any election articles, and we should delete the January 6 United States Capitol attack article since well that was just a news story and we're not news! Scuba 13:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That’s obviously not the argument here. The second bulletpoint at WP:NOTNEWS is the relevant one. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Syrian transitional government. Not really that notable. Could be like one sentence. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 11:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Scuba Shaneapickle (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am interest to this article, please give some time to improving the article. Great achievement (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. NOTNEWS doesn't mean "never cover news", RECENTISM is about articles focussing too much on parts that are recent, which doesn't apply here because the event itself is recent, and a lack of details is not a reason for deletion because AfD isn't cleanup. Cortador (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem isn't that it lacks details because there aren't enough sources or something, the problem is that sources do not elaborate on this topic at all. Unless Anas Khattab elaborates in the future, there's nothing that could be added (unless this is supposed to remain a WP:PERMASTUB)

  Additionally:

  • WP:PERSISTENCE, which says "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." likely applies because all sources about this coup plot were published around April 16-17 (2 days total)
  • WP:INDEPTH, which says "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing.", likely applies because sources (barring North Press Agency) mention that this statement came as part of a larger series of statement about the Ministry of Interior's future plans.^[1][2][3][4]
  • Maybe also WP:LASTING, but it might require more time to assess historical significance. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - possibly significant but needs more sources. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem isn't that it lacks sources, it's that the article's topic isn't significant; the only info sources collectively say is that Anas Khattab announced (on 16 April) that the Syrian Ministry of Interior stopped a coup plot devised by former regime officers. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article covers a real event: a coup attempt in Syria that was reported by multiple news outlets, including TASS and Middle East Monitor. Even if details are limited, the event is significant and part of the ongoing conflict in Syria. Unclasp4940 (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. It seems WP:TOOSOON to have this article as standalone and not as a couple of paragraphs at Syrian transitional government and similar pages, and so I would find a redirect to Syrian transitional government a preferable outcome for the time being. I think it does not matter much either way, since it's very likely there will be coverage of this event in the years to come, but a redirect seems the most appropriate right now. MarioGom (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Godfrey (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)

Everything is related to his claims of once seeing a UFO. A standard WP:BEFORE fails to find any other point of notability. Fails WP:BLP1E. Chetsford (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies, this should have been speedily deleted. For transparency and to avoid bookkeeping chaos, I'll defer to someone else to close this. Sorry. Chetsford (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Paranormal, Police, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of unused sources available to support notability, including [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. It just needs a {{more citations needed}} template at top, per WP:ATD. I'd say it passes WP:BLP1E. 5Q5|^✉ 12:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is Sky History (the first linked source) the same as the History Channel? If so It might not be reliable, as explained at WP:RSPHISTORY. Bonus Person (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm unclear how it passes BLP1E if every piece of the scattered coverage relates to his supposed abduction? Indeed, this was the point raised by User:Grim23 and User:LuckyLouie in the first AfD (which closed as delete and which this article seems to be a carbon copy recreation of). Chetsford (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per comments of 5Q5 Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:BLP1E applies. Everything is about that one event. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Baptiste Horn (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 Luxembourgish gymnast. Fails WP:NSPORT as only sourcing is Olympedia.

My search turned up a lot of hits for the phrase "Jean-Baptiste, horn" (i.e., people who played the horn called Jean-Baptiste) but nothing but the usual mirrors and bare-listings for the actual gymnast.

The German Wiki article contains a number of links to different sources. Taking these in turn:

1. Die Turnvereine der Stadt Luxemburg - Using OCR and ctrl-F, I cannot find any reference to Horn in this article. Doing the same for "Bonneweg" and "Bonnevoie" also failed to turn up any hits for Horn. Scanning by eye through the first few pages (i.e., the part that deals with the era in which Horn would have been active) I also fail to see his name. Perhaps it is in here somewhere, but where?
2. Jeux olympiques de Stockholm. In: L’Indépendance luxembourgeoise - This is a bare listing in a table of results.
3. Luxemburg und die Olympischen Spiele. In: Luxemburger Wort - This is another bare listing.
4. Chronik aus der Hauptstadt. In: Luxemburger Bürger-Zeitung - another bare listing.
5. Monsieur Jean-Baptiste Horn. In: Luxemburger Wort - this is death-notice published by the family. Not independent. It is also not entirely certain that this is the Horn referred to in this article - the age does not match (the notice says he was 72 but this does not match the DOB we have for Horn which would have made him 71). It also makes no mention of gymnastics or Olympics at all, instead only describing them as an employee of the railway - so if this is the Horn who completed at the Olympics, their family did not think it important enough to mention.
   

The only thing I can see from the above sources is that Horn went as "B. Horn" and so it is entirely possible that, similar to the Frank English case and a number of others, some kind of mistake has been made by Olympedia about biographical details. FOARP (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Olympics, and Luxembourg. FOARP (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Luxembourg at the 1912 Summer Olympics - As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip Modi (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 sources include bio pages, sponsored articles, and primary sources. The articles from Medianama and Business Standard clearly state at the end that they are sponsored. I also tried to find significant coverage from independent, reliable sources but couldn’t find any. GrabUp - Talk 08:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessential (company) (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)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 22 closed with no consensus and I decided it was appropriate to relist. Procedural nomination, no opinion from me. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Australia. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging those who participated in the previous AFD/DRV: @Commander Keane, Spartaz, Robert McClenon, Deepfriedokra, OwenX, Asilvering, Alpha3031, DotesConks, MCE89, लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक, GMH Melbourne, Darkm777, and Eluchil404:; apologies if I have missed anyone. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The source analysis provided by Robert McClenon in the previous discussion shows that WP:NCORP has not been met. --Enos733 (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Look at sources and make a judgement. I have just restored the version I worked on, with four sources. Using ProQuest via WP:TWL will show the fulltext of relevant newspaper articles. The sign up is instant and seamless, you need 6 months/500 edits/10 in last month for access I think. Try searching "Quintessential Equity". From memory, the oldest article from The Australian in 2013 is probably superior to any used thus far, including the fifteen suggested in the previous AfD. It would be great if editors could quote bits of NCORP or content policies in this discussion. I don't know how I would be able to understand the formation, investment strategies and development of those strategies of a company just by reading "routine coverage" in independent, reliable newspaper sources. Unfortunately I don't have any more time to devote to this process, but I would be wary of the analysis previously provided by Robert McClenon.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Delete in previous discussion). While TNT was appropriate for the prior version, the new version is acceptable and has national coverage in Australia. 🄻🄰 13:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My opinion that the company passes WP:NCORP hasn't changed since the previous AfD. And thanks to Commander Keane for their work on cleaning up the article. Linking the sources I presented in the previous AfD again for reference: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]. And as Commander Keane notes, there are even more good sources from The Australian, the Australian Financial Review and others on Proquest. MCE89 (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - Commander Keane says: Look at sources and make a judgement. I have just restored the version I worked on, with four sources. I did, and see three sources, not four. When I look at the sources, doing what a reader of the encyclopedia who wants to verify the content will do, I run into the Australian Financial Review paywall. I didn't try to follow the instructions that Keane says are seamless, because a reader won't be able to follow those instructions. In particular view of the history of conflict of interest editing, good-faith proponents should have some respect for the concerns of the editors who first objected to a spammy article and now object to an article with one old but significant source and two old invisible sources.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary	Satisfies GNG
1	Australian Financial Review	Paywalled report of purchase of a building	Yes	Probably	Yes	Probably	No. Fails verifiability.
2	www.smh.com.au	Discussion of recent activity by company	Yes	Yes, just barely	Yes	Yes	Yes
3	Australian Financial Review	Paywalled	Yes	Probably	Yes	Probably	No. Fails verifiability.

If the proponents can't find any non-paywalled sources, then respect for the core policy of verifiability should be to move this into draft space until the proponents can pass the Heymann test by finding viewable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon As I am sure you are aware, there is absolutely no requirement that sources be non-paywalled in order to satisfy WP:V. In fact, WP:V explicitly says Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. I am more than happy to send you PDFs of any of the sources currently used in the article or any of the other sources I linked above (which I will add to the article as well) if you wish to verify them for yourself. But insisting that all readers should be able to access sources has absolutely no basis in policy. If that was the case, sources like the New York Times and the majority of academic journal articles could not be used for establishing notability either, since many readers will encounter a paywall. But policy is clear that sources should not be rejected just because some readers may not be able to access them. MCE89 (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I did say I planned to review the sources in more detail if it ever got relisted, so I suppose I better get on with it before this expires. Starting with the best and clearest examples selected by MCE from the previous AFD:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Lindsay, Nicole (14 March 2018). "Quintessential's opportunity fund ready to roll". The Sydney Morning Herald. (also in current article)	– I would say between 40 to 80 percent of the article is quotes from the company, but I am willing to tentatively accept it on ORGIND		– The bigger issue is that the non-quote content is heavily WP:ORGTRIV	– and I am not fully convinced that it demonstrates the author's own analysis or evaluation	—
Lenaghan, Nick (11 January 2021). "Quintessential wins big on Visy deal". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2476776820)	–		– Fairly similar to the above, maybe slightly better in terms of detail. If these are the best sources available, I would be inclined to exclude	–	—
Schlesinger, Larry (1 July 2024). "Quintessential's $250m Brisbane office deal confirms valuation slump". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 3074029294) (also currently ref 3)	I am inclined to assess this one as fully meeting ORGIND		but it falls further from addressing the company itself directly or in-detail	– realistically, there is analysis here, and good analysis, but more about the (CBD office) real estate market than any of the companies
Lenaghan, Nick (22 September 2014). "Quintessential time to sell-five asset portfolio". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1748982798)	–		Less detailed than the other Lenaghan article, or the SMH. Not much to say.	–
Thomson, James (8 March 2024). "Meet the bravest investor in office property". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest has 3 different versions, 3063607564 is one)	The way I see it, this is one of your usual CEO puff pieces
Tauriello, Giuseppe (26 February 2025). "Port Adelaide Distribution Centre expected to fetch $220m". The Australian.	–		– I would disagree this has meaningful independent analysis, but it's not significantly worse than the SMH. I would place it between that and the 2014 Lenaghan.	–	—
Wilmot, Ben (3 July 2024). "Quintessential agrees to pay $250m for Brisbane CBD tower". The Australian. (ProQuest 3074848171)			– Actually relatively good on the other criteria, but it's not clear to me we can say much about the company with the content therein		—
and I think I'll finish off my first round of reviews with ref 1 currently in the article, since the other two were already listed: Schlesinger, Larry (4 March 2015). "Quintessential Equity pays $32m for 360 Capital's Canberra building". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1747550524)	–		Less detailed, less analysis. I would rate it below the 2014 Lenaghan.
For my second round or reviews, we'll start with the one Commander Keane noted as promising, which I believe would be: Brown, Greg (22 August 2013). "Shane Quinn won't yield on incentives". The Australian. (ProQuest 1426541389)	Virtually entirely "he says" from the co-founder which would typically be considered to fail the second half of WP:ORGIND		–	–
Lenaghan, Nick (24 March 2021). "Quintessential Equity arrives in North Ryde". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2504294758)	Look, the main issue with these "We bought this, this is why this is a good deal for us" (other than the fact that they're mostly quotes)		is, of course they're going to make vague waves about how they're a good company doing good deals. No investment manager is going to go up to a news company and say "here's how we do a bad job with our clients' money".	– There's analysis here, but almost all of it is "invest in us, here is what we say our strategy is, it's very good", and it's from the company.
Lenaghan, Nick (17 March 2021). "Quintessential wins jewel in Adelaide's high-tech precinct". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2501830229)	– I think I would put this at around the Tauriello article.		– The last and 5th from last paragraphs are mostly what I'd look at. Though, I wonder if looking at all the (marginal) Lenaghan articles as a single source could be an option.	–	—
Lenaghan, Nick (18 June 2014). "Quintessential considers Canberra buys essential". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1749585511)			I would say this is less useful than the (other) 2014 and North Ryde articles by Lenaghan, and would not have useful content even if combined.	–
"Quintessential wins $120m WorkSafe building in Geelong". Australian Financial Review. 16 February 2016. (ProQuest 1765335569)	–		I don't think the middle bit is useful SIGCOV for this company, and the rest is ORGTRIV stuff.	–
Johanson, Simon (16 February 2016). "Quintessential wins bid for Geelong's WorkSafe office". The Sydney Morning Herald.	–		– Honestly I think this one might be the best one yet, either that or the Visy article by Lenaghan	–	—
Johanson, Simon (10 November 2015). "Cashed-up investors prompt funds managers to sell". The Sydney Morning Herald.	–		I would say this is something like the Schlesinger article, where there is not enough directly about the company, out of the independent secondary content.	–
Tauriello, Giuseppe (7 November 2023). "Quintessential secures third tenant for upgraded Telstra building". The Australian. (ProQuest 2887105309)	–		– Slightly worse than the other Tauriello article, and I don't think combining the two would help much even if we wanted to do that.	–	—
Wilmot, Ben (23 September 2014). "Quintessential in $90m sell-off". The Australian. (ProQuest 1563927930)	I was about to mark it as fully passing ORGIND until I realised Bishop was the person handling the sale (it did say that in the article, just missed it initially)		This is really the heart of ORGTRIV, where the only information in there is useful about that one specific transaction.	–

Overall, I'm not really convinced the sources meet NCORP at this point, but I will be adding the other 8 of 15 to my assessment table later, before looking for, e.g., that 2013 The Australian article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, that took a bit more out of me than I expected (hence the long break as well), so I don't think I'll be looking for any more sources yet. But, overall, I don't think the available sources quite clear what we want to for WP:NCORP, though there are a few I might be convinced are valid, like the Visy article by Lenaghan or WorkSafe by Johanson. I'd be happier if the three best sources more clearly featured direct and in-depth information (better than either of those two) about the company that also meets the second half of ORGIND though, so at the moment I'm still leaning towards a delete, or back to draft. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete based on the source analysis above and the fact that the article is basically devoid of useful information, except that company bought property X and sold it for Y dollars. --hroest 15:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We are finely balanced on the keep/delete axis and I would rather not close as another no-consensus given the recent history. I would particularly like to hear from User:Commander Keane, User:लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक, and User:MCE89, if they are willing, as to their views on the source analysis User:Alpha3031 has been kind enough to perform and whether they maintain their keep !votes in its light.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.
  • Article I mentioned above (@User:Alpha3031): "'Quinn won't yield on incentives' Brown, Greg.  The Australian; Canberra, A.C.T.. 22 Aug 2013: 33" [55] (hopefully that TWL link works) was the article I was talking about. It is not groundbreaking, just better or equal to the others.
  • Source searching: There may be more, who knows. It must be exhausting to review all sources presented, it may be easier to browse through the better ones and evaluate them. The CEO puff piece (#5 in the table above) was a newspaper's blog/website according ProQuest, the evaluation was inevitable.
  • Passing comment: I said in the DRV that notability guides are about guessing if an article meets content policies, but I can see it is also something of a "I don't like it" stamp. That's fine, it is just frustrating to me that if this gets deleted I will be the only one with access to the information. Particularly the paywalled stuff. Newspapers showed some interest beyond casual buy/sell mentions. There is good stuff across various sources and we can put together an article, but we don't want to.
  • Ponderance: This is the silly "other stuff exists" argument but I saw Michael Tritter (a minor character on a TV show) on the Main page. We like the source coverage there apparently. We are the encyclopedia of 2000s American TV shows but not of 2000s Australian businesses.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The tables above focus on certain attributes of a source but omit two vital elements for NCORP criteria which are easy to overlook if the focus is on GNG only - in-depth and "independent content" about the company. Rules out stuff like regurgitated announcements and advertorials, a good source will have in-depth independent analysis/commentary/etc. None of the sourcing meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies to Alpha3031, I didn't spot your coverage of the 2013 article in the middle of your table. It is nearly all co-founder quotes.

  I think HighKing's point may be summed up by the final part of WP:ORGIND: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation.... I accept that from what I have seen, no journalist has sat down and done this properly (as reflected in the table above). There is public interest in the company (hence the sustained coverage), there is enough to create a useful article (I personally found interesting coverage going beyond triviality) but perhaps the overarching concern is that a neutral article cannot be written without thorough journalistic opinion, analysis and investigation? I can empathise with the fear of being overrun with articles and this is a reasonable argument.

  The strength of Wikipedia can be in bringing sources together to cover a topic, but the golden nugget exposé source for this company may not exist. It is hard for me to accept the deletion of knowledge that has value. Commander Keane (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think the source analysis by Alpha3031 is extremely reasonable. I am still of the opinion that enough of the sources meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND to satisfy NCORP, but I think reasonable minds may differ on precise interpretations of those guidelines for some of these sources. I've summarised my reasoning for three of the sources that we agree are among the most promising, plus this new one I found, in the table below.

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Wilmot, Ben (19 April 2023). "Brookfield wins interest in $300m Brisbane tower". The Australian.	This one is clearly independent, as all of the parties involved declined to comment given that their negotiations were ongoing at the time		Tells us that Quintessential is considered a savvy buyer with a focus on quality assets, that it is looking for an exposure to the city which is expected to benefit from the 2032 Olympics, and that the boutique property house has been linked to a series of office deals amid a change in the investment cycle. It also distinguishes this potential deal from Quintessential's past purchase strategy, saying that its most recent purchase in Adelaide was a refurbishment and repositioning play while this Brisbane building is in the luxury market	Provides secondary analysis of what the potential deal says about the market and about Quintessential's strategy
Schlesinger, Larry (1 July 2024). "Quintessential's $250m Brisbane office deal confirms valuation slump". Australian Financial Review.			I disagree that this one falls short of addressing Quintessential itself directly. It says that Quintessential is one of the few investor groups buying up CBD office towers, and that its thesis for doing so is based around securing them at or near the bottom of the market and in better performing markets such as Brisbane where vacancy rates are lower and A-Grade rents are still rising amid a flight to quality. It also says that it is able to do so because of its loyal investor base and that part of its motivation for its purchases is to improve its ESG credentials.	Strikes me as providing meaningful secondary analysis regarding the author's thesis for why Quintessential is one of the few investors buying CBD office towers
Johanson, Simon (16 February 2016). "Quintessential wins bid for Geelong's WorkSafe office". The Sydney Morning Herald.	Contains one brief quote, but I don't see any reason to doubt its independence		Explains what is distinct about Quintessential's strategy - that it has stamped a presence in the office space by buying, regenerating and re-leasing older buildings in Canberra and NSW to government and other tenants - and provides an overview of its historical purchases and development pipeline.	This appears to be original, secondary analysis of the company's historical buying strategy and a brief overview of its pipeline
Lenaghan, Nick (11 January 2021). "Quintessential wins big on Visy deal". Australian Financial Review.	Slightly more quote-heavy, but not enough to meaningfully undermine its independence in my view		Places this particular lease in the context of the longer-term view the fund manager and syndicator is taking on the prospect of disruption in the industrial market, giving some analysis of what this disruption might look like, and explains that Quintessential’s strategy is to acquire and regenerate value-add and core-plus commercial office and industrial properties in CBD and city fringe markets.	This also strikes me as original, secondary analysis by the article's author, explaining how this particular deal connects to other purchases that Quintessential has made and that it "vindicates" Quintessential's original purchase of the asset.

MCE89 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - voted last time as Delete. Nothing has changed. It doesn't have enough reliable sources or they are mainly announcements/Churnalism and not deep coverage about the company.Darkm777 (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius 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)

A 20-year "mainly diplomatic" territorial dispute doesn't rate a standalone article. This is covered in other articles, mainly Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute, as well as 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania. Some details could be merged into the former. The misleading infobox makes it seem like this was a war, which it wasn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lithuania, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A very cursory search of just the article title showed at least two journal articles about this dispute ([56][57]). Certainly seems like a significant event: a number of sources providing passing coverage credit this conflict with killing any meaningful pan-Baltic alliance ([58][59]). Curbon7 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A 20-year quarrel isn't an "event". I'm not disputing that there was a meaningful dispute. There was a decades-long struggle for control of Vilnius, but IMO it should be (and is already) covered in the Vilnius Region article. There is no need for two articles covering the same ground. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bipin Joshi (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)

Meets WP:ONEEVENT, coverage is only related to his capture, does it inherently make the subject notable? GrabUp - Talk 08:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bipin Joshi is currently a highly important and sensitive figure for Nepal. He was abducted by Hamas on October 7, 2023, and has now been held hostage in Gaza for over 580 days. He was the only Nepali citizen among those taken during the attack, which makes his case not just unique but also deeply significant at both national and international levels.

Even though he is a student, the entire nation of Nepal has been emotionally invested in his return. Since 2023, his case has been covered by over two dozen reliable national and international media outlets, including BBC, Al Jazeera, Republic World, Nepal Times, and many others.

This is not merely a personal incident — it is also a human rights and geopolitical issue. His story has also been featured prominently in Israeli media, which further highlights his global relevance.

While the current article contains several references, there are many more verifiable and reputable sources that can still be added. Therefore, we kindly request that the article not be deleted but given time and space for further improvement.

Anyone can search “Bipin Joshi Hamas” online and immediately see how widely covered and notable this individual is, especially in the context of Nepal–Israel relations and the events of October 7.

For all these reasons, please consider keeping this article. It provides more than just factual information — it reflects a story that continues to matter to thousands across borders.Rohanshresrha (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not sure he's any more notable than the other hostages... Could be a name in the list, but I don't see that this individual is more or less important than anyone else in the same situation. Some coverage, but it's either about the event or efforts to get the person back, showing the kidnapping is the notable event, not this person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your thoughts and perspective!

  However, Bipin Joshi is not just one of many hostages held by Hamas — he is also known for his act of bravery on October 7, where he reportedly picked up and threw back a grenade that Hamas militants had thrown inside the shelter where he and 10 other Nepali students were hiding. His action potentially saved lives.

  Regarding individual media coverage: there are multiple reputable Nepali news articles that focus entirely on Bipin Joshi himself, not just the larger incident.

  It is also important to note that out of the 251 individuals taken hostage by Hamas on October 7, Bipin Joshi was the only Nepali citizen — someone who had no prior involvement in the war or any political connection to Hamas or Israel.

  Because of this, his case has been raised repeatedly in Nepal's Parliament, and even by the Prime Minister. Major national media outlets in Nepal have been reporting on him consistently for over 580 days. I can absolutely add those references to the article if needed — many of them are still being collected and formatted.

  Now, regarding why the article focuses on Bipin Joshi by name:

  The reason is simple — across Nepal, thousands of people have been actively searching online to know who Bipin Joshi is, how he was captured by Hamas, and what his current status is. This article responds to that public interest and awareness.

  Once again, I respectfully emphasize that Bipin Joshi is not just one among hundreds of hostages. He is a nationally recognized figure in Nepal, and his case continues to represent a significant humanitarian concern.

  That’s why a dedicated article on him is appropriate and necessary on a platform like Wikipedia.

  Many more individual news articles focusing solely on his story are still being added — this is just the beginning of the page.

  Thank you.Rohanshresrha (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Reportedly picking up" a grenade isn't terribly notable either. We don't have an article that talks about that. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ping me, I have no ability to modify/close the discussion. I've said what I have to say about this. Oaktree b (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom and Oaktree, I don't see anything particularly different about him from any other hostages, and I don't see anything other than the one event about him. Would never have even heard of him if it weren't for the conflict. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 22:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a G5: creation by a non-extendedconfirmed user in violation of ArbCom sanctions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P. C. Solanki (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. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Refs are mix of interviews and routine annoucements to with the cases. scope_creep^Talk 08:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lots of mentions, but no in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: Earlier PROD-nominations were based on failing to find sources, which the re-write shows is objectively untrue. The AfD is now proposed mainly on WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:SIGCOV, which again reflect lack of WP:BEFORE and an appeal to policy (without specific discussion) that I address below. For instance, for user Wcquidditch (talk page), who voted above and originally nom. for PROD, several issues regarding lack of due diligence in PROD/AfD have consistently been raised on their talk page that concern me.

• WP:RS—This is trivially untrue. Subject of the article is literally the headline of independent and published news from several news organizations such as The Economics Times, Deccan Chronicle, and The Quint. No significant research is needed to create a profile of the topic from these articles and it's more than a passing mention (or routine announcement) as the subject was the primary advocate of mult-year high-profile trial (see: Asaram for defendents profile and stature). This also satisfies, in my opinion, reliable, independent, and sources criterion of WP:GNG.
• WP:SIGCOV—Additional citations within the article, where the subject is not the main topic directly, but critical part of the story support significant coverage, such as the coverage in the Caravan magazine, The Print articles. These may include interviews but are not the basis of the subjects profile. Further, coverage spans several years (2013-2023) indicating WP:SUSTAINED.
• WP:BIO—The impact of trial brought by the subject as lead counsel is highly notable (as stated above) and their portrayal in a notable bollywood film (Sirf Ek Bandaa Kaafi Hai). — Komodo (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - in light of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Paid reporting in Indian news organizations, are the article's sources reliable? If so, I'd say "keep". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Thommes (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 Luxembourgish sportsman. Fails WP:NSPORT as the only sourcing is Olympedia.

Article presently claims they were the flagbearer at "Paris 1912", which is odd because the games were in Stockholm that year. At any rate, simply being a flag-bearer at that point was no great honour and wouldn't have attracted SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Olympics, and Luxembourg. FOARP (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Luxembourg at the 1912 Summer Olympics - As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Luxembourg at the 1912 Summer Olympics : I'm not finding the needed WP:SIGCOV for WP:SPORTSBASIC to be met for this individual. Olympedia is not a reliable, independent source. Let'srun (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Émile Lanners (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 Luxembourgish gymnast. Only sourcing is Olympedia. Fails WP:NSPORT. FOARP (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Olympics, and Luxembourg. FOARP (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Kumar (civil servant) (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)

Biography with no actual claim to notability. The applicable notability guideline is WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, and I can't find any significant coverage of him in independent, reliable sources. The interview in the article is a primary source and again says nothing about him (it consists almost entirely of his own words). bonadea contributions talk 07:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 07:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Fails WP:BIO. The article is filled with promotional language & appears to be a self-promotional creation with trivial details. Chronos.Zx (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Delhi, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13th root (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 sources. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 06:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 06:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Found a short article about this on Wolfram MathWorld, which is a reliable source. But it still may not meet GNG, and this Wikipedia article very likely contains original research. ApexParagon (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sirivella mandal (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)

Not notable. Only source is on spam blacklist. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 06:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 06:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of fire departments in the Philippines (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)

Unclear notability WP:NLIST Scoria (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Scoria (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NLIST. All blue links aren't actually fire departments, they're broader articles that have some small mention of a fire department. Ajf773 (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable enough. Doesn't meet WP:NLIST. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gora Chakk Wala (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 singer. Found nothing reliable and significant for his notability. Afstromen (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Authors, Music, India, and Punjab. Afstromen (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No SIGCOV. Doesn't meet WP:NENT or WP:NBIO — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bikram Singh Mofar (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 fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, and sources are insufficient to establish ANYBIO or WP:GNG; they’re either WP:DOGBITESMAN or WP:ROTM. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Punjab. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Agree with Vanderwaalforces, article fails WP:GNG & WP:NPOLITICIAN. Chronos.Zx (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No SIGCOV. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:NBIO — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The Sol Foundation (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)

More than a year ago, Melcous correctly added our template for excessive reliance on non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources to this article on a UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan.

In any case ,the underlying issue has gone unresolved. I conducted a truncated WP:BEFORE consisting exclusively of a Google News search (because, given the subject, it's obviously not going to appear in any journal or book).

This search found pages upon pages of references to this outfit which might incline the casual observer to presume it passes WP:N. However, on close inspection, most of these are to The Debrief, which is unambiguously non-RS. Its editor-in-chief is Micah Hanks (who also reports on Sasquatch, [60] wrote the foreword to a "non-fiction" book on monsters that purportedly live in South Carolina [61], wrote a book about something called "ghost rockets" [62], and used to host a podcast about ghosts and ESP) The other contributors of this site come from a similar pedigree.

Additional sources are WP:ROUTINE (e.g. an event listing at the San Francisco Standard [63]) or are purely incidental mentions, such as organization officers being quoted by title in stories.

Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Paranormal, Politics, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The Guideline for establishing notability in this instance is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). 5Q5|^✉ 11:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose deletion. Regardless of individual beliefs about UAPs, the topic is widely covered by mainstream media, government sources, and academic commentary. Wikipedia’s role is to document verifiable information, not to judge its validity. Deleting well-sourced content undermines neutrality and public access to information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hempanicker (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article. To describe Dr. Nolan as an 'enthusiast' is a deliberately biasing term meant to diminish. Such derogatory language should not be used in a delete argument per rules. Dr. Nolan is a noted research scientist. Of one wants to describe a noted scientist with nearly 400 peer reviewed papers as an enthusiast, then one might also say Chetsford, the person proposing this deletion, is an enthusiast for anti-science propaganda. The Sol Foundation has now published several pure research papers on the subject of NHI (which by the way is mentioned in the UAP Disclosure act as put forward by Senators Schumer and Rounds) multiple times as a global definition of not just the idea of "aliens" but also any other non-human intelligence that might have originated on Earth prior to humanity. The pogrom driven by Chetsford, LuckyLouie and others is a malicious attempt against freedom of information and should be resisted. TruthBeGood (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC) — TruthBeGood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

• Very Strong Keep I have edited my keep and refactored the prior discussion below. The article has substantially changed since this was nominated. This was the Reference section when The Sol Foundation was sent nominated to delete:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288083567#References

I have now added sources including the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Hartford Courant, Catholic News Service, Aleteia, Rice University, Newsweek, Daily Express, PopMatters, Society of Catholic Scientists, la Repubblica, Focus (German magazine), Niconico, La Razón (Madrid), Sunday World, Futurism, the International Social Science Journal, and more, and still have more yet to go through when I have time. This is the References section now after 39 edits by me:

* Archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733#References

* Live: The Sol Foundation#References

Here is all current sources sorted against WP:SIGCOV: Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

That is coverage from seven (7) nations: the United States, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, and Japan. I think this is now a trivial keep and the AfD should be withdrawn. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek is considered generally unreliable per WP:NEWSWEEK. The Daily Express is considered generally unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS. "Popmatters.com" - a small pop culture, citizen journalism website [64] that publishes listicles like "the best albums of 1999" - is doubtfully RS for coverage of xenobiology, quantum physics, and astronautical engineering per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The La Razon article mentions the Sol Foundation once (in a title quote attribution to its founder) and is not WP:SIGCOV.
I've gone through the rest of the sources in this latest batch and they all are insufficient in similar ways, however, due to the sheer volume of sources I am truncating the written portion of my analysis for purposes of readability. (I previously evaluated a different shotgun spread of sources by the above editor in a comment I made [65] said editor has taken it upon himself to collapse.) Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Readers: Please pay attention to this.

Your La Razon remark is completely made up of whole cloth and your imagination. Why would you do that? Did you think no one read the content? The La Razon article says, "Inspirados en proyectos científicos y divulgativos, como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nollan con la Fundación SOL, o en Francia UAP Check, los miembros de UAP Digital y UAP Spain prevén la próxima creación de un Panel de expertos multidisciplinar que impulse el debate y el estudio científico sobre los Fenómenos Anómalos No Identificados en territorio europeo." That translates to, "Inspired by scientific and educational projects, such as the one launched by Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation, or by UAP Check in France, the members of UAP Digital and UAP Spain plan to create a multidisciplinary panel of experts to promote debate and scientific study on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena in Europe." Which is the citation for, "La Razón credited the Sol Foundation with having inspired similar research ventures in Spain."

How is that a "a title quote attribution to its founder"? La Razón explicitly credits the SOL Foundation itself, not just Garry Nolan or its title, as an inspiration for UAP Digital and UAP Spain’s planned expert panel. The sentence structure in Spanish--"como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nolan con la Fundación SOL"--clearly attributes the project’s inspiration to both Nolan and the SOL Foundation as entities, not merely using the Foundation’s name as a descriptor. There is no valid counterargument because the conjunction "con" ("with") grammatically links Nolan’s action to the SOL Foundation as an active collaborator or source of the project, making it impossible to interpret the Foundation as a passive or incidental mention.

The nominator has substantially misdiscribed everything. Did you notice how many of the sources are notable enough to have deeply complex Wikipedia articles themselves? The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics is a bad source for the topic of a foundation studying UFOs? Some of the sources are thorough and entire pieces on the SOL Foundation. Some are brief but relevant mentions, and all of them were picked because they were relevant and contributed to Wikipedia:Notability. Look at my user page. I don't mess around with sourcing; this was something I did rapid fire because we simply needed to demonstrate notability, not build a complex 80k+ article... yet.

Remain Very Strong Keep. Parse all of nominator's remarks carefully for accuracy at this time. I don't know what is going on. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage in a debate as to whether the six word phrase "Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation" constitutes WP:SIGCOV. But I acknowledge and appreciate your obvious passion for this subject. Chetsford (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Everyone knows that not every article source needs to be WP:SIGCOV. The point today is I have demonstrated breadth and scope of Wikipedia:Notability, with articles from global scales, from long to short pieces, to some that are significant and some that are minor. That's still notable. You can't minimize major international publications. You have not demonstrated in any way that The Sol Foundation lacks notability. There are still more sources, and more content (multiple citations for some) to pull out of the sourcing I've already added. There is no such thing as an AfD qualification or requirement that the article has to be in any sort of advanced state of development. Please be honest with our peers and fair. Very Strong Keep. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I have demonstrated breadth and scope of" We'll have to agree to disagree. As noted by my previous comments, your sources include WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, a citizen journalism pop culture website, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers, something called "exopolitik.com", [66] etc., etc. Chetsford (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What version of the site are you even looking at? Hartford Courant, Focus, Sunday World, the Catholic ones, AIAA, and so on? I challenge you, here and now, to show me exactly where Substack is used as a source, or else withdraw the AfD and recuse yourself from this article going forward, in perpeuity, with no option to undo that, and it will be enforced by other Admins? Do you agree?

Here, the current version right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733

Show me exactly where the text string "substack" shows up anywhere in that article. Do you agree to my terms? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it showed up "in that article." You said your comments on this Talk page "demonstrated breadth and scope". Those comments include "Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort ... substack.com/home/post/p-142904928" [67].
"Do you agree?" No thanks! Chetsford (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is what you are compelled to judge against:

• The Sol Foundation#References
• Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

I have been exceptionally clear that I am arguing against the live, production sources. You arguing against what I previously linked here and did not use in the article is irrelevant. All that matters is what is in the live article now, and what is in the article now trivially meets Wikipedia:Notability and particularly, it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Not, again, what I linked and withdrew on the AfD. What is now live. This article passes AfD now trivially. If you are unwilling to address all the sources, you are not arguing per policy, and 'good faith' becomes questionable, as you are then arguing against non-acceptable criteria which is not policy. We are all slaves here to outcomes. That includes the nominator. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated my remarks with newly found evidence.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strong Keep -- Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort: EDIT 1: Upgrading to strong keep. I'm already integrating these. The PopMatters article (link) is literally an entire piece devoted to the Foundation and their Symposium just by itself. EDIT 2: I'm still finding more sources. Google Sol Foundation without quotes, add various flags like +Nolan, +UAP, +research, +UFO, +military, and so on--there's plenty. I again stand by this being an easy keep. I'm already adding sources to the live article, and there's plenty more I can add in the next few days. Have at it, all. It is unclear how OP missed all these. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] EDIT 3, again reaffirm my Strong Keep; I've added yet more sources, and here is the current references section: The Sol Foundation#References. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] https://www.popmatters.com/sol-foundation-symposium-ufos-uap https://oxfordre.com/literature/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1348 https://mitechnews.com/guest-columns/sol-foundation-releases-17-videos-from-ufo-conference/ https://substack.com/home/post/p-142904928 https://www.courant.com/2023/11/22/how-a-stanford-professor-aims-to-organize-the-hunt-for-alien-life/ https://www.firstprinciples.org/article/serious-physicists-are-talking-about-ufos-what-changed https://exopolitik.org/hochrangige-insider-beraten-ueber-die-zukunft-der-ufo-offenlegung/ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/issj.12484 https://nowcreations.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/10-Reasons-to-Consider-the-Possibility-of-_Beyond-human-Intelligence-No-11-Sept-2024.pdf I see more mentions yet on Google News and Google Scholar that are required to be considered. Premature nomination. Just because an article is a stub that no one has had the time or energy or will to build from available data doesn't mean it's not notable or should be deleted based on not being "done". I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it? Certainly not. The one article I linked on the talk page alone has enough outbound links to quash any AfD there. I have found a raft of material there with a minimum energy of effort--it took me less than 5 minutes to find what I linked here for Sol Foundations. See next Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station that at first glance was hard to source, but I dug into enough data that now it's fine. This is an endemic problem on Wikipedia it appears? Just because the one user cannot or will not find data doens't mean a topic isn't notable. [[68]] is how I found Invention Secrecy Act, and now when I get the will and time to go back to it, I'm not even a third of the way into the sourcing I have saved. A more "done" article will have 70-80+ sources, not just 24. The same thing happened with how I found this article and how it's references look today. This article here was a particular pain to source and had one (1) source when I found it; click to see the current version. Just because an article takes work and is a stub still doesn't mean it's not notable. It's also obvious "not just The Debrief" as sourcing, which is not a disallowed source in any event under any rational or widely accepted rules nor precedent or RfD or discussions anywhere. Keep for The Sol Foundation. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] The Oxford reference doesn't mention this at all, "exopolitik.com" is clearly not RS, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers is not RS, a PDF on the website of a guy in Ohio named Vince who works on "raising the consciousness of the planet as part of the Universal Life Force" [sic] is not RS, etc., etc., etc. "I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it?" Based on the sources you attached to your Keep !vote here, I'm very tempted to look at it. Chetsford (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASPERSIONS are out of place at AfD. Thank you. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Remain Keep. Hartford Courant, Poptech, Mitechnews, First Principles, the social science journal, what's already in the article and I stopped on sources after a few pages. A topic doesn't require sourcing to be WP:GNG that means it can grow beyond a stub. A stub-level topic can be perfectly notable, and no rule says or ever will say otherwise. Keep. Also, you need to change your needlessly aggressive tone and stance, along with the routine WP:Civility boundary-pushing threats you have been applying to your recent spree of UAP-related AfDs after the Harald Malmgren AfD debacle you initiated that led to Jimmy Wales getting involved due to your actions. From an Administrator, it is grossly inappropriate. You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity. Ego has neither role nor allowance here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep: Chetsford's consistent use of biased terms reveals a strange anti-knowledge bias. Further, Chetsford's characterization of Nolan running a "UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan" dismisses the fact that SOL is an accredited 501-c3 which has garnered several million dollars in funding, ran 2 symposia, been the focus of dozens of news articles (as noted by others), etc. is further indication that Chetsford is running a non-scientific and biased agenda not based on Wiki rules but on his personal belief system. Professor Nolan is a world-renowned immunologist, founder of several successful companies, has dozens of US patents to his name, etc. so the purposeful use of derogatory language is reason alone for ignoring his arguments. Frankly, at this point given his past actions against Malmgren it is a surprise he does not lose his editor status and be banned. TruthBeGood (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, both per the nominator's openening argument and their subsequent rebuttal of the supposed 'sourcing' presented. We require independent, third party sources and unfortunately none of any quality have been offered. I note that so far, both 'keep' !votes not only fail to present policy-based arguments for maintaining the article, but are littered with aspersions and near-personal attacks (e,g the nom's so-called "bias", "threats" and alleged immaturity)—while themselves demanding civility! To quote, these have "neither role nor allowance here". Neither, of course, does WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, aka WP:JIMBOSAID. (Also, from a purely formating point of view, could we only bold our !votes once, please.) I have hatted the aspersons, etc., above; if they are repeated I will seek administrative involvement. The ubnderstanable passons that AfD can sometimes generate is no excuse for assuming bad faith. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, have you had the opportunity to review the rewritten article?

  • The Sol Foundation#References
  • Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

  It's almost completely redone since the AfD and youre !vote. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-stating my delete !vote for the record. If it's required, as it seems to be á la mode, call it a Very Strong Delete. The article has been expanded in byteage, but the sources are of no better quality, unfourtunately, so WP:HEY doesn't apply (as an example of WP:HEY in an AfD, see for example at Becky Sharp, for Nations of 1984 or in Concordat of Worms, et al.). As has been established by the nom's thorough analysis of the new sources, few of them are both independent or indepth. None support the claims made to WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG, while support !votes themselves seem to rely on non-policy based arguments (e.g. BUTITEXISTS, an argument to avoid, using WP:OR to analyse sources' claims, and suggesting that all opinions given equal weight). And that's ignoring the continued questioning of other editors' motives. The keep !votes are, perhaps unsurprisingly, greater in number; they are, equally unsurprisingly however, weaker in policy. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated aspersions from now-indefinitely blocked editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per rules please point out exactly the aspersion cast. Don't claim you want sources while not providing any specifics. Chetsford and others have already been chastised for their behavior. Pointing this out is not an aspersion, just a fact. Now-- to policy... Arguing policy: Under WP:GNG an article is retained when independent, reliable secondary sources provide significant coverage—coverage that is neither trivial nor purely routine. The Sol Foundation article meets that threshold: a feature story in the Hartford Courant profiles the group’s formation and scientific aims, offering far more depth than a press notice; Newsweek devotes several paragraphs to the Foundation’s inaugural symposium and quotes its mission statement in the context of national UAP-policy debates; the Daily Express, Sunday World, and Germany’s Focus supply further analysis of its policy recommendations. Because these outlets have no editorial connection to the Foundation, each instance satisfies WP:RS and demonstrates the independence required by WP:V. Taken together, the sources show sustained, serious reportage—not fleeting mentions—so the article clears GNG without difficulty. WP:ORG presumes notability when multiple reliable publications discuss an organization in detail, and the Foundation easily qualifies. A culture-journalism treatment in PopMatters chronicles its November 2024 symposium and describes the think-tank’s research agenda; a peer-reviewed paper in Wiley’s International Social Science Journal cites the Foundation’s role in advancing UAP scholarship, establishing academic relevance; trade coverage in Aerospace America and mainstream religious press such as Catholic News Service document its participation in government-civic forums. That range—from metropolitan newspaper to peer-reviewed journal—confirms breadth of interest across sectors and disciplines, negating any claim that the topic relies on press releases or fringe blogs. Because Wikipedia evaluates notability by what independent authors have written, not by the subject’s fame, the clustering of these independent, substantive sources fulfills both the letter and the spirit of WP:ORG; deletion would therefore contradict core inclusion policy. Under WP:NPOV the encyclopedia must represent all significant, verifiable perspectives without editorial prejudice. The existing Sol Foundation article does exactly that: it reports the group’s origins, research aims, and public activities strictly as described in independent secondary sources, while attributing any evaluative language—positive or skeptical—to those sources. There is no advocacy or promotional tone; where reliable outlets raise doubts the article can and should include them in proportion, preserving balance. By contrast, deletion proposals that dismiss the foundation as a mere “UFO club” or label its founder an “enthusiast” introduce pejorative framing not supported by the cited coverage and thus clash with NPOV’s prohibition on subjective language. Removing a well-sourced article because some editors question the topic’s legitimacy would itself create a neutrality problem: it would excise documented information from mainstream newspapers, journals, and trade magazines, leaving Wikipedia’s treatment of UAP research incomplete and skewed by omission. NPOV requires that content be judged on the reliability and independence of its sources, not on individual editors’ attitudes toward unconventional subjects. Keeping the article therefore upholds neutrality by presenting verifiable facts for readers to evaluate, whereas deletion would substitute editorial bias for documented evidence—contradicting both NPOV and the broader principle that Wikipedia “does not censor topics that are reliably sourced, even if controversial or fringe.” Opponents claim the article “fails GNG” because its citations are routine or incidental, yet the record shows multiple feature-length, independent pieces—Hartford Courant profile, PopMatters symposium report, Newsweek analysis, Wiley journal article—that exceed the “significant coverage” threshold in WP:GNG and satisfy WP:ORG’s requirement for reliable, third-party sourcing. Those who invoked WP:BEFORE overlooked or dismissed these sources; the assertion that such material “obviously won’t appear in any journal or book” is disproven by the peer-reviewed ISSJ paper. In short, the corpus is more than adequate, and routine mentions are supplementary, not foundational. Labeling Hartford Courant, Newsweek, or Wiley as “none of any quality” misstates WP:RS; these outlets are plainly reliable under policy, and their presence confirms notability. Other objections collapse on closer inspection. The article does not “lean on” The Debrief; even if that site were excluded entirely, mainstream and academic coverage remains plentiful. Claims of promotionalism ignore that the text is fully attributed, neutral in tone, and free of puffery, whereas the deletion rationale itself applies pejorative language (“UFO club,” “enthusiast”) that violates WP:NPOV. Finally, WP:ILIKE/IDONTLIKE dictates that editorial sentiment is irrelevant; Wikipedia retains topics documented in reliable, independent sources regardless of their perceived seriousness or controversy. Because those sources exist in abundance and the article can be readily refined to reflect them, deletion would contradict core inclusion policy rather than enforce it. Applying the consistency principle embedded in WP:N, Wikipedia should judge the Sol Foundation by the same sourcing threshold that has long sustained analogous entries. Earlier UAP bodies such as NICAP and CUFOS were retained once magazines like Time and major newspapers profiled them; the Sol Foundation already matches or exceeds that level of coverage, with features in Newsweek, Hartford Courant, PopMatters, and a peer-reviewed Wiley journal. Comparable new ventures—Harvard’s 2021 Galileo Project, assorted think tanks, and niche NGOs—have been kept on the strength of a handful of reliable articles in mainstream or specialist press; the Foundation’s two well-reported symposia, plus national and international reportage, clearly meet that same bar. To impose a higher standard merely because the topic involves UAPs would contradict WP:ORG’s call for uniform treatment across subject areas. Wikipedia also favors improvement over excision. During the AfD one editor added additional mainstream and academic citations, after which the article unambiguously satisfied WP:GNG; policy dictates that once independent coverage is shown, remaining disputes—e.g., over one Debrief citation—are resolved by normal editing, not deletion. Finally, WP:V reminds us that inclusion rests on what reliable sources publish, irrespective of whether the work is speculative or controversial. The encyclopedia already hosts entries on paranormal institutes, alternative-medicine centers, and To The Stars Academy precisely because significant independent coverage exists. The Sol Foundation now enjoys a comparable evidentiary record; deleting it would depart from established precedent and apply an inconsistent, topic-specific gate that policy expressly rejects. Strong keep. The Sol Foundation unambiguously meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG: mainstream and academic outlets—Hartford Courant, Newsweek, PopMatters, Wiley’s International Social Science Journal, among others—provide non-trivial, independent, and reliable coverage. All statements in the article are verifiable (WP:V) from these high-quality sources (WP:RS), and the text is written in an even-handed, fact-based style that satisfies WP:NPOV. Objections centered on alleged source weakness or routine mention collapse once the full reference set is examined; a handful of marginal citations cannot override the weight of substantial reporting. Policy favors improvement over deletion, and the article has already been fortified with additional reliable citations during the AfD. Removing it would excise well-sourced information and create a gap in Wikipedia’s treatment of contemporary UAP research, contrary to the project’s mandate to document notable topics neutrally and comprehensively. TruthBeGood (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. The few sentences I have read of the walls of text above haven't given me much motivation to read more, but evaluating this one on the merits: First, we have 2 unambiguous RS mentions: a brief mention in the Oxford reference ("In 2023, Garry Nolan established the Sol Foundation, a research center dedicated to the interdisciplinary study of UAP."), and an article from Focus discussing the org in depth. Second, we have lots of incidental mentions in RS, which are not themselves sufficient to establish notability but do support it. Third, although sources like The Debrief shouldn't be considered reliable for making claims about UAP, they are being used here to establish the existence and nature of a UAP-related organization, which could be acceptable. This, combined with the fact that several people are continuing to actively seek out and add new sources to the article, paints a picture of a low quality article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems, so I'm landing on keep and improve with this one. -- LWG ^talk 22:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to Closer Re Offsite Discussion of this AfD. Extensive and impassioned offsite discussion of this AfD is occurring on Reddit's r/aliens and r/ufos (e.g. [69], etc.) and on X (e.g. [70], [71], etc.). Chetsford (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, as with other topics in this area there seems to have been a certain amount of WP:REFBOMBING going on in this article (with things like PR press releases being cited for some reason). I'm not seeing the multiple reliable WP:SIGCOV sources needed for WP:NORG, and I disagree that the one sentence in the oxford source counts for this, and I also disagree that a bunch of passing mentions/mentions in unreliable sources somehow makes up for this fact (and this isn't supported by my reading of WP:GNG) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  May I ask what unreliable sources you see here? Express and the PR thing from Japan (which was only there to give easier English language context to the other Japanese media source) are both gone.

  • The Sol Foundation#References
  • Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

  Several of the articles are about SOL specifically. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per WP:HEY and WP:ATD. When it was nominated I would have voted the other way, per WP:TOOSOON, but with the newly added material I feel it now just crosses the line of notability and will likely improve in the future. 5Q5|^✉ 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Among the newly added sources like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, etc., which do you think are the best examples that prove SIGCOV here? Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

I've assembled this here for users to review. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per arguments made by LWG and 5Q5. The article's improved substantially since nomination and good RSes have been identified. An an aside, remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs. National Catholic Reporter and The Debrief aren't RSes for the existence of God or UFOs, but they're fine to verify specific groups of notable people have joined together to promote a shared belief. Noting that someone believes in Sasquatch isn't actually a argument for deletion: Ghosts, Ghost rockets, and the Holy Ghost are all 100% encyclopedic topics. Feoffer (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs" I'm not familiar with that policy. Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was just an aside. GNG is met per LWG and 5Q5. More abstract discussion is for some other page.Feoffer (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sorted list in Talk:The Sol Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV captures enough of the primary criteria in WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria to justify keeping the article. WP:HEY and WP:ATD also appear to have helped the quality of the article improve in the past week. Tschieggm (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)— Tschieggm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. The article passes WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:N, and WP:SIGCOV. This has been evidenced by the above posts of Very Polite Person, Feoffer, and LWG. Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Source Evaluation. The article has changed considerably since the nomination with the carpet bombing of a dozen new sources into it. As nominator, I'm obligated to evaluate them to determine if the nomination should now be withdrawn. Based on my evaluation (below), I affirm the this article fails WP:ORGCRITE. We would need at least three sources that are across-the-board green (reliable, independent, and significant in coverage) as per WP:SIRS. As per SIRS, several sources that meet 2 of 3 criteria don't add together to create a single quality source. After one year of efforts, we still can only scrape together one.

Source	WP:INDEPENDENT	WP:RS	WP:SIGCOV	Notes
The Central Minnesota Catholic	Yes	Maybe	No	One sentence mention of The Sol Foundation
Marin Independent Journal	Yes	Yes	No	Article is about organization's founder Garry Nolan; contains one sentence mention of Sol Foundation
Rice University "Archives of the Impossible" conference website	No	Maybe	Maybe	Two sentence mention of the Sol Foundation in the speaker bio for Garry Nolan at a conference at which he was speaking
Newsweek	Yes	No	No	Consensus-determined unreliable source per WP:NEWSWEEK
International Social Science Journal	Yes	Yes	No	One sentence mention of The Sol Foundation in this 33-page article
popmatters.com	Yes	No	Yes	WP:USERGENERATED entertainment website
. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
Society of Catholic Scientists	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
la Repubblica	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
Focus Magazine	Yes	Yes	Yes	Report on the club's conference
Niconico	Unknown	No	Unknown	WP:USERGENERATED video sharing site a la YouTube
La Razón	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
arXiv	Unknown	No	Unknown	Community-determined unreliable per WP:ARXIV (preprint hosting service)
The Debrief	Yes	No	Yes	The Debrief is the new website landing page for the podcast of ghosts/cryptozoology/ESP/flying saucer blogger Micah Hanks. While presented with an attractive new skin and under the headline "science and tech", it's the same pseudoscientific entertainment fanzine. Recent podcast episodes have uncritically discussed remote viewing [72], Atlantis / Lemuria [73], Thunderbirds [74], "The Deep State" [75], and Ancient Aliens-style cruft [76].
Sunday World	Yes	No	No	The Sunday World is a tabloid news outlet a la WP:DAILYEXPRESS and regularly peddles a variety of 'weird news' type articles. There's just a one sentence mention, in any case.

Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your source evaluation, you left out Aleteia (2 mentions), Hartford Courant (3 mentions), The_Byte (3 mentions). WP:NEWSWEEK says: "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis." WP:ARXIV says: "generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts." The arXiv paper was written by subject matter expert Matthew Szydagis, a university physics professor who is also a member of UAP orgs. This is a lot of media coverage for a foundation less than two years old. Even if the article were to be deleted, it will surely be republished. Just tag it at top with {{more citations needed}}. 5Q5|^✉ 12:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that. It appears each of the three I missed are more fleeting, incidental mentions that only prove the organization exists (which is not in doubt), but don't meet the requirements of WP:ORGCRIT.
Insofar as Newsweek; when we evaluate an outlet, like Newsweek, on a case by case basis that (usually) means we accept some limited use for the mundane and routine. Obviously, reporting on a club of people whose leader may believe aliens are jumping through dimensional portals to conduct medical experiments on humans [77] is not the kind of basic, nuts and bolts use portended by WP:NEWSWEEK.
Insofar as arXiv goes, generously assuming the author is an expert, it may be usable for WP:V under WP:SPS, but unpublished manuscripts are -- by the fact they're unpublished -- not significant in coverage so are not SIGCOV. That said, a physics professor is no more an SME on flying saucers than a professor of music theory, since flying saucer belief is not a subject that falls within the bailiwick of physics. An SME on flying saucers might be a professor of folklore or sociology, or a clinical psychiatrist. Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On this narrow point, I gotta side with Chetsford. If we let everyone with a Phd and ARXIV qualify as a SME expert, we'd be lost. It's not "scientifically important", that's a red herring. Feoffer (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, The Debrief is reliable in the very limited context of profiling a like-minded organization. No one questions that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one questions that the group exists. Indeed, no one does. But see WP:BUTITEXISTS. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll reword. Not to put too fine a point on it: no one questions The Debrief's reporting that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Existence ≠ Notability Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one here has suggested otherwise. At issue is whether Debrief functions as an RS in the very limited context of profiling an association of notable people with admittedly fringe beliefs. Feoffer (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The community has previously critically discussed TheDebrief [78]. Opinions ranged from "Treat it as a group blog / self published source" (User:MrOllie); "the DeBrief is weighted toward generating sensational clickbait rather than reliably sourced journalism" (User:LuckyLouie); "Largely self-published website with a lean towards UFO/alien crankery and sometimes questionable pop science takes" (User:Bon_courage). MatthewM stated it was "highly credible, least biased, and mostly factual". Chetsford (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, it's a complex source, but look just at the matter at hand. Is there any reason their 'reporting' is mistaken or erroneous about who is in the organization and what they've said in the direct quotes? Feoffer (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown. We can't undertake the WP:OR needed to analyze the veracity of specific claims. The only thing we can say for certain is it doesn't meet our standards of reliability. Chetsford (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User's assessment of Popmatters is factually completely wrong; it's like saying the "New Yorker" is USERGENERATED because they take open submissions. They clearly have editorial control as seen here. From our own sourced article at https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Apple&lang=en&q=PopMatters#Staff:

PopMatters publishes content from worldwide contributors. Its staff includes writers from backgrounds ranging from academics and professional journalists to career professionals and first time writers. Many of its writers are published authorities in various fields of study.[2][7] Notable former contributors include David Weigel, political reporter for Slate,[8] Steven Hyden, staff writer for Grantland and author of Whatever Happened to Alternative Nation?,[9] and Rob Horning, executive editor of The New Inquiry.[10] Karen Zarker is the senior editor.

As I said above, assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles in direct opposition to sourcing guidelines. DO NOT take either of us at our word. Take the articles and facts at their word, and remember we are compelled to live and die by Wikipedia rules alone here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be adding them later:

• https://sfstandard.com/2024/12/01/alien-conferences-seti-sol-foundation/
• https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/would-extraterrestrial-intelligence-disprove-christianity/
• https://greekreporter.com/2024/04/01/us-navy-admiral-search-alien-life-underwater/

Please evaluate these too and attempt to be accurate. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not tenable. It's the third time you've apparently Google searched "Sol Foundation" and blasted every responsive link into this thread as purported proof of SIGCOV then demanded we prove each one isn't. The San Francisco Standard is addressed in the OP. Word on Fire Catholic Ministries is obviously not RS. Your approach is not conducive to a coherent discussion.
"assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles" This is the third time you've pivoted from discussion into attacking the motivations of individual editors. I would again strongly encourage you to take your concerns to WP:ANI. I'm not personally offended by your ongoing aspersions, they're just derailing to the AfD. Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Word on Fire is patently WP:RS to discuss a topic of 'Would Extraterrestrial Intelligence Disprove Christianity?'. Again, as I demonstrated to all above with the La Razon example that you utterly mischaracterized--and that finding is incontrovertible--you're doing something here that is problematic. The article passes notability for the small scale of the article that we have. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your actions, as you seem to be tilting at increasingly tall windmills. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to AfD closer: nominator has NOT rebutted my revealing they misrepresented Popmatters in their table, because that alone with the rest pushes this into basic trivial Notability compliance. That's why it's such a problem to them getting a successful deletion here; at that point the article subject will always be notable going forward. Diff here; there is no possible policy-based counter-argument to diminuize the Popmatters piece or present the site as not fine for WP:RS. This alone resolves the AFD. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have, thus far in this discussion, scattered more than two dozen different sources into the wind including unambiguously non-RS ones like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, and a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers. It's easier for you to take a pass through Google Search and shotgun any URL you find into the discussion than it is for me to offer rebuttal after surrebuttal for why each of these random links don't pass any realistic threshold of sourcing. So, if I stop responding to any particular item, assume it's for no other reason than I simply can't keep up. Chetsford (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for compiling this table. I'm not sure I agree that a source is unreliable for information about the existence and nature of a pseudoscientific UAP organization simply because the source also publishes similar pseudoscience. If anything it would be reason to scrutinize whether the source is truly WP:INDEPENDENT. But I haven't seen any reason to think that The Debrief is unreliable on the question of whether The Sol Foundation exists and is notable in the realm of UAP-related orgs. Also, as 5Q5 pointed out, you seem to have omitted the Hartford Courant and Aleteia citations, both of which seem to pass all three criteria. By my count the Focus, Hartford Courant, and Aleteia citations are sufficient to satisfy WP:SIRS, and the citations to The Debrief, arXiv, and the organization's own website pass the lower bar of being appropriate for inclusion, if not necessarily for establishing notability. The reason my keep vote is weak is that all the significant coverage about this org seems to relate to a single symposium they hosted in 2023, while the repetition of that event in 2024 doesn't seem to have gotten much if any coverage. There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct". But I'm not there yet. -- LWG ^talk 13:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct"" WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY. Either it's notable or it isn't. It's not going to become non-notable in two years. Chetsford (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, but my weak keep vote isn't because I think it's notability might change, it's because I think it's notability is borderline and further information might convince me that it never was notable. -- LWG ^talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even though I voted keep, the article was a mess. I took a buzz saw to it to clear out the distracting material that will have to go anyway if this closes with keep. -- LWG ^talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just notification on a relevant matter: Chetsford put in an RfC on the reliability of The Debrief. In the Discussion, they say: "A current and contentious AfD is also presently turning on whether or not this is RS." I would imagine the referenced AfD is this one, (Personal attack removed). Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben.Gowar: How many times do you have to be warned not to cast aspersions? I am sick and tired of your underhand, snide and generally all-round bad faith questioning of Chetsford's motives. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense that my talk page is a better place for those descriptors. In the case of this AfD, I'm mostly trying to keep interested parties informed of consequential RfCs. Especially if the AfD "turns" on it. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are persistently failing to assume good faith, peristently castining aspersions and then persistently sealioning when called on it. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, it is absolutely this AfD. And I purposely avoided mentioning it in the RSN RfC so as to avoid the possibility of canvassing editors from RSN to this AfD. Insofar as the theory in your edited comment [79] that I'm plotting to get The Debrief deprecated to "turn" this AfD ... that's not possible. The RfC on The Debrief will run at least 30 days. This AfD will close in the next week or two. Chetsford (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either this AfD is "presently turning on whether or not this is RS," or it is not. You have stated that it is. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it obviously is; read the above comments -- its name has been invoked 21 times. But that's an entirely separate matter from the RSN listing. Once again, the RSN discussion will run 30 days. This AfD will close somewhere in the next 5-14 days. Nothing that happens at RSN will have any impact here. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but you seem convinced there are these far-reaching plots converging on certain subject matter. I'm at a loss as to what I can do to convince you that's not the case. Chetsford (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases (AfD and the RfC), the reliability of The Debrief is in question. Interested editors should know. As far as the RSN discussion having no "impact here," that seems improbable given that AfD readers interested in the reliability of The Debrief may indeed look at the RfC (regardless of whether the discussion has run 30 days or not). I suppose there's the possibility of no immediate impact, if no one looks or no one references it (but the transparent nature of Wikipedia seems to render that improbable).

In any case, if the AfD discussion does not result in deletion, then the RfC will probably have an impact on the article later (especially if The Debrief citation remains). So, editors interested in this article should know. Ben.Gowar (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Cakelot1's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hadn't intended to study this article, but all the vituperative, handwaving ad hominem shouting by Keep enthusiasts convinced me that I should. Having done so, I am satisfied that there are no serious reasons for keeping it, and that Chetsford is correct. Athel cb (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pretty much agree with what LWG, 5Q5, and Feoffer have said. The article's definitely gotten better since it was nominated (WP:HEY), and sources like Focus Magazine, Hartford Courant, and Aleteia look like they give us enough WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS for WP:NORG. Notability might be on the edge, but it seems good enough for now, and anything else that needs fixing looks WP:SURMOUNTABLE with some regular editing. Deleting it now feels a bit much with the sourcing we've got and the chance to improve it more. Omegamilky (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Of the sources that I find reliable and more coverage than one sentence (Hartford Courant, Aleteia, Focus), the first covers the founding; the second and third cover the organization's conferences in 2023 and 2024, and give a short mention of the organization. This feels WP:TOOSOON for an article, where the subject has not reached the threshold of notability. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm very sympathetic to this argument, we don't need to be covering every RECENT update about the UFO world. But where else could we put the "Roster" of notable people who collaborated together? That's the primary information I'd want readers to be able to reference: who is in which UFO "Supergroup". I know I certainly can't keep it straight without a reference. Feoffer (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Montenegrin pro-government protests (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)

Part of the 2022 Montenegrin crisis and doesn't have much significance to have a separate article A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Montenegro. A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No strong opinion here, but deletion seems unnecessary, better to merge to 2022 Montenegrin crisis. Geschichte (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2022 Montenegrin crisis: The infobox on that page is even titled pro-government protests so these seem to be more or less the same events. The page is also desperately in need of being updated so I might take that up. (or at least updating the language) Moritoriko (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above, probably shouldn't be deleted but notable enough for mention in parent article. GoldRomean (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have more look into the ATDs suggested?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:34, 2 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!} 04:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2022 Montenegrin crisis. The main article is pretty short, no need for this fork. MarioGom (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Petersen (businessman) (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 doesn't seem to be any independent notability here, it seems like deleting or redirecting to Flexport would make sense. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Transportation, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify: There exist some reliable sources WP:RS: [80][81] [82] and to a lesser degree [83] for some biographical information. The current article is bad and may be worth blowing up altogether (WP:TNT). A future article has potential. I'm also okay with Draftify as a result. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The entire article is riddled with unedited ChatGPT citations, everything needs to be double-checked for relevance and accuracy and cleaned up. It's bad, but not quite WP:TNT bad. Dandykong1 (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems like there are RSes to support inclusion but the whole thing has to be redone. There is enough notability to justify inclusion, but it would need to be spearheaded by someone who is willing to actually write it properly. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I made a major rewrite of the article. Please review: BuySomeApples, Dandykong1, Gjb0zWxOb — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does look much better. I wasn't sure if Ryan Petersen is notable outside of Flexport since all the sources seem to be about the company, but if consensus is leaning towards a standalone page for him I'll withdraw this nom. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I definitely think this constitutes an improvement and the sources seem solid. I am willing to withdraw and/or amend my vote here unless there is someone who thinks I am missing something here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Flexport. jp×g🗯️ 04:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think this discussion is split between Draftification and Merge/Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Flexport: Source and target are short enough and while notable, have significant overlap. Komodo (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is a bad idea in my opinion. There shouldn't be personal biographies in company articles. The subject has enough independent coverage for its own article.--Afus199620 (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Laugs (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 fails notabillity guidelines for musicians, and also violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It does not cite any sources and is very short. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Germany. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

support agree with reasoning Czarking0 (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I find it hard to believe he's not notable... Indexed in SIX national libraries, the VIAF. Gnewspapers brings up many hits, Gbooks has hits on his name from the 1930s to the present. The VIAF link has two biographical links in German. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Album review here [84] Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the German wikipedia article has some book references that look reliable here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it is very likely that he is notable, but it is not going to be easy to find reviews of his concert performances or recordings (although Oaktree b has already found one on jstor). Some do come up on a Google Books search, eg Fanfare (14/1-2:263) and The Gramophone (52/613-618:536), but they have only snippet views, so can't be used as sources. Finding hard copies from that era would probably need access to a very large library. Apart from reviews, Discogs shows multiple albums released by the Musical Heritage Society and by a German label called Da Camera Magna. I realise that Discogs is not reliable, but it gives album names and label numbers which can be searched for elsewhere - and does suggest that he meets WP:MUSICBIO#5. I have added some sources to the article, and removed the unsourced tag. I'll see what else I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more than "comments" here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Reviewing comments and additional links presented here suggests that nom. criteria for deletion is not met. Can be tagged for additional sources and enhanced by translating from the German article. Komodo (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Korczak's orphanages (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 messy stub that hijacks its interwiki. Korczak ran two notable orphanages (Nasz Dom, https://www.wikidata.orgview_html.php?sq=Apple&lang=en&q=Q11789892, and Dom Sierot, https://www.wikidata.orgview_html.php?sq=Apple&lang=en&q=Q6431490). The article nominated here (Korczak's orhpanages) is incorrectly linked to Q6431490 (all other wikis in it are about Dom Sierot specifically); it also doesn't make obvious the concept of "Korczak's orhpanages", combined, has stand-alone notability (I see some passing mentions in my BEFORE, but no clear SIGCOV). The current article has just one (non-English) reference and is a stub; I suggest deleting it as it also seems to contain many errors. For example, it gives dates for its two orphanages, unnamed, as 1911-1942 and 1918-1940. The dedicated Wiki articles have different dates (1912-1944) and 1919-1946, reactivated in 1991). If our underreferneced stub cannot even get basic facts straight (such as names and dates), dubious notatability aside, WP:TNT is needed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete / redirect to Janusz Korczak and hopefully articles about the orphanages can be written separately. I dont see a point to have a joint article that is a stub about both of them, conflating the two. In his bio (Lewowicki, Tadeusz. "Janusz Korczak." Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education (2000).), there is only a mention of the "Krochmalna Street orphanage." for which land was purchased 1910 but not much more information. --hroest 20:59, 5 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!} 04:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't seem to meet NCORP and I couldn't find much on a WP:BEFORE, but someone more familiar with Albanian sources might have better luck. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Albania. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Advertising, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: As a recent creation with no independent or reliable sources, it should not have hit mainspace in the first place. MarioGom (talk) 09:35, 2 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!} 04:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Draftify, redirect or simply delete. The sources posted for this article are mostly primary and two sources are unreliable. I am unable to find any acceptable sources when doing a WP:BEFORE search. The company has been in existence since 1991, so there might sources available in European languages other than English. And I am not sure what the target should be for a redirect. I'm in agreement with any appropriate target. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Night in Texas (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:NMUSIC. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to pass WP:NMUSIC. Examples of WP:RSMUSIC secondary coverage include a staff bio on Allmusic [85], album review in Ox-Fanzine [86], a Metal Hammer review [87], and a Distorted Sound review [88]. ResonantDis_tortion 19:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More than enough coverage. Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Soldier Research Program (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, entirely self published sources, poor quality article, should be moved to draftspace or deleted. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Science, Computing, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The sources are definitely not self published (WP:ABOUTSELF). Any source that begins with ISBN, ISSN or DOI is not self published. I don't see anything promotional here. — Maile (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Strictly speaking, that's not correct. Anyone can get an ISBN for a self-published book. Also preprint platforms allow you to get a DOI on any submission. MarioGom (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not see any self-published sources, I do see some issues with promo/NPOV and general MOS issues. The paragraphs The Santos simulation platform was developed from the ground up. Using the 215 DOF and based on the use of optimization based methods that enable cost functions to drive the motion, the numerical algorithm drives the motion to predict joint variables across time (also called joint profiles) and subject to a number of constraints. For example, predicting gait of any body type is now possible. Similarly, any task can be modeled and simulated using this approach. Xiang, Yujiang, Jasbir S. Arora, and Karim Abdel-Malek. "Hybrid predictive dynamics: a new approach to simulate human motion." Multibody System Dynamics 28.3 (2012): 199-224. and Over time, the Santos family has grown to incorporate a variety of different body scans to provide a range of models that include our female version, Sophia, and a broad array of different body shapes, types, and sizes. Our research is currently being extended to allow multiple digital human models to interact with each other to complete tasks cooperatively. … Santos was built using state-of-the-art technologies adapted from robotics, Hollywood, and the game industry. VSR research continues to grow in its dynamic capabilities, physiology, and intelligent behaviors through integration of Artificial Intelligence, design optimization, physics-based modeling, and advanced, multi-scale physiological models. stick out to me as being inappropriate. However, the actual subject (VSRP and related inventions) do appear to pass GNG. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 09:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walking Trees (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)

Appears to be a promotional Wikipedia article JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - This is a standard Wikipedia book review, not an article. I've done a number of book reviews for Wikipedia, and the format on this is pretty close to how Wikipedia prefers those reviews. Here's an example: Ladies of the Lights. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. — Maile (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Education, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP as per Maile --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the author. Wikipedia is not advertising-space. We have articles on significant books, not "reviews". This particular article is the typical publisher's back-cover content (short summary and a handful of glowing reviewer quotes) cast in Wikipedia format. Short of adding the price and sticking a discount label on it, I can't see how we could possibly make an article more promotional. More formally, my opinion is that a book is wikipedia-notable if it attracts lasting independent interest (i.e. something beyond the handful of reviews in library/educational magazines and journals at the time of publishing, which are things every book generates, because that's what publicists arrange). Although I've no doubt about the quality of the book and its author, I can't find evidence of lasting independent discussion of it, merely listings in all the normal book sellers (amazon, abe etc.). I'd suggest handling the entire series in one article, or redirecting to the author. Elemimele (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, again, Wikipedia:WikiProject Books is the guideline for how to do this. And Walking Trees is within that. And, by the way, welcome to Wikipedia. I see you are fairly new. — Maile (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  well, to be fair, I'm not that new, and I'm only attempting to follow the criteria in WP:BOOKCRIT. In this field, reviews in the first year of a book's life are almost always prompted by the activities of a publicist employed by the publisher, which means that although the opinions of the reviewer are independent, the existence of the review is not. Elemimele (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

something beyond the handful of reviews in library/educational magazines and journals at the time of publishing, which are things every book generates, because that's what publicists arrange If you're interested, there's a couple of discussions about this in WT:NBOOK archives 6 and 7. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With multiple reviews in independent sources, it meets WP:NBOOK. Schazjmd (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Enough coverage to meet NBOOK. Additionally reviewed in Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies (here) and Language Arts (here), along with quite a bit of coverage in Yearbook of the American Readihg Forum (here). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Bitches (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)

Following WP:NALBUM there aren't any sources showing that this meets the criteria for notability of a recording. It could be redirected to FBG Duck#Discography but I don't think it is even a popular enough search term to need a redirect. Moritoriko (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions, Music, and Illinois. Moritoriko (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. FBG Duck's Wikipedia presence was exaggerated a bit by certain users, creating spinouts, templates and whatnot. It should be trimmed; no independent coverage has been demonstrated for this album so it should go. Geschichte (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to FBG Duck as an alternative to deletion. ✗plicit 02:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete on the grounds of WP:TNT for now, there might be notability. Inappropriate sources used, many sources don't mention Tagwirei or just have a passing mention, unnecessary commentary and promotional language (likely LLM) used in the page, MOS issues. Hmr (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Zimbabwe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding the entry for Kudakwashe Regimond Tagwirei, I request that it not be deleted. It's important to note that his sanctioning was reportedly based on the Sentry Report. However, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report, available at [89], presented different findings which were not considered in the Sentry Report something that I have referenced well.

  I will adjust the tone to ensure neutrality and balance the information presented.

  Additionally, I plan to remove a couple of categories from the page.

  The Sentry Report, originating from an NGO, has been cited as a basis for US sanctions. Conversely, the Parliamentary Accounts Committee, along with the Land Tenure System Implementation Committee, did not find him guilty in their report.

  It's also important to provide a platform for people with no voice like him that may not be readily available elsewhere. As a volunteer, I believe this platform can facilitate a broader understanding and allow for critique from other editors.

  Further relevant information includes his involvement with the Arundel Hospital, which reportedly serves the poor, his membership in the WEF ([90]), and his ownership of Sakunda Holdings, which has partnered with Swiss-based Trafigura. While the Command Agriculture program he initiated faced challenges, it is credited with contributing to wheat sufficiency in Zimbabwe. Zvazviri (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cocaine Nose (song) (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)

Redirect to Music (Playboi Carti album). Almost all the sources discuss this song in the context of the Music album or a series of concert performances. Only The Face talks about the song as its own thing. Not enough for WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it charted in other territories too, not just the whole continent. (North America) EternalBaile (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And literally every track from the album that has its own article, uses the same references and those references are mainly about the songs only in the context of the Music album. EternalBaile (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GoldRomean (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example "Trim". EternalBaile (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Cummings-Grady, Mackenzie (March 14, 2025). "Playboi Carti's 'MUSIC': All Guest Features Ranked". Billboard. Retrieved 31 March 2025.
2. ^ Diaz, Angel; Saponara, Michael (March 14, 2025). "Every Song From Playboi Carti's 'Music' Album Ranked: Critic's Picks". Billboard. Retrieved 31 March 2025.
3. ^ Beaumont-Thomas, Ben (2025-03-17). "Playboi Carti: Music review – the most anticipated rap album this decade was worth the wait". The Guardian. Retrieved 2025-03-31.
4. ^ Eede, Christian (28 March 2025). "Playboi Carti – MUSIC". The Quietus. Retrieved 31 March 2025.

EternalBaile (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the only article with a reference that is only entirely for a song and not the album. EternalBaile (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. EternalBaile (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And at least the song is mentioned in the reviews unlike many of the other songs in the album. EternalBaile (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage by reliable sources. This [91] (note the "source=chatgpt.com" in the URL) was probably the only source mentioned in the article about the actual song primarily. GoldRomean (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:V and WP:NSONG per wide coverage met. Some reliable sources are already added here and more are available. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here is another source

Czarking0 (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At present there's no consensus - further analysis of sources cited in the discussion so far would be useful (their titles alone give no indication of their relevance to the song or whether there is SIGCOV in the last source cited).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khumar Gadimova (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 does not yet appear to be notable for English Wikipedia Insufficient Sources, and the topic may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Lists of people, Music, and Popular culture. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khumar Gadimova is a well-known figure in Azerbaijani pop music and is widely recognized by the public in the country. Her artistic career has been covered by numerous reliable and independent sources such as APA, AzərTAc, Musavat, and Report. She has been active in the music industry since the 1990s, performing solo concerts, with her songs broadcast on national television and radio, and has participated in several state-level events.

The article is based on verifiable and independent sources, and the subject clearly meets the notability criteria due to her impact on Azerbaijani culture and public recognition. For these reasons, I oppose the deletion of the article and recommend that it be kept.Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Being selected as an 'Honored artist' by the Azerbaijan government should be enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. I found sources stating this, but all are in Azerbaijani and I'm not sure if they're reliable enough.[92] [93] — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  https://president.az/az/articles/view/22993 The official website of the President of the country has reported on this. Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Vaughn Finley Sr. (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)

Have conducted a WP:BEFORE search and unable to find any real evidence of notability. Almost exclusively WP:SPS or unreliable. The only source worth anything is Flynn (The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief), but it's a very brief mention (about 40 words). Does not meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Atheism, and United States of America. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Radio, Television, Military, Internet, Alabama, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), New York, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see notability yet for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. I can't see enough notability either, and the article is too reliant on primary sources. Went up in 2004, and looks like one of those that escaped scrutiny in the days when the article creation/assessment process was less advanced. Leonstojka (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are plenty of web pages pro and con about his skeptic activity but I wasn't convinced by the reliability of any of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pixhawk (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)

currently, there are zero in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Searches did not turn up enough to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There's lots of results in Google Books and Google Scholar. None of is enough? I could not get access to many of them, so I couldn't fully assess. MarioGom (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yadessa Kuma (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. There are 2 third party sources. This one when translated is a small 1 line mention and not SIGCOV. This one is rather routine coverage. An unremarkable career that doesn't meet WP:SPORTSCRIT or WP:NATH. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 9 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 Ethiopia. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the sources would seem to militate against him having an "unremarkable career" (parenthetically, a bafflingly and unnecessarily rude remark to make about a BLP subject). jp×g🗯️ 03:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is the SIGCOV of this individual? LibStar (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The SIGCOV would be in Ethiopian newspapers from the 1980s. Given that American media which did not even attend the 1980 Olympics considered Kuma worthy of prose-based coverage, significant coverage is certain to exist in those sources as soon as they're digitized, and notability is always determined by the existence of sources, not their presence in the article.

  There are actually five third-party sources linked in the article, not two, I am not sure what the source of that number is. The Salt Lake Tribune source does not meet the definition of WP:ROUTINE because it wasn't planned – how could you plan something like that? – nor run-of-the-mill, as the Summer Olympics only happen every four years and Olympic injuries are usually noteworthy. --Habst (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ethiopia at the 1980 Summer Olympics - As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Per WP:NOTDICT and not WP:Notable. Derrida was a philosopher and polymath with countless neologisms to his credit and many other unique connotations to existing expressions. A few of these, like Différance have broken out and achieved notability and have been studied on their own terms way beyond passing mentions and do deserve an article, but this is not one of them. In addition, the entire article consists of two Derrida quotations. Suggest transwikify content to q:Derrida and perhaps redirect the page to one of these:

but honestly I don't which one. There is also Event (philosophy), but Derrida is not mentioned there; maybe Phlsph7 could help out with this one. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Philosophy. Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect I looked on Derrida and other than the link back to this article I don't see any mention of this concept even in the talk pages. If there is a meaningful difference between a neologism and a philosophical concept then I think this falls more in the latter camp. However, I would support redirecting this back to Derrida and if talk page consensus there suggests splitting it then it can be resurrected.

Czarking0 (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, no merge/redirect , A couple of quotations which do not explain what the heck "freeplay" is. It appears there are no backlinks to the article which are not from Derrida's templates. So no evidence from secondary sources of the importance of this concept, neither in the wider philosophy, nor in the "Derrida Universe". So I see no need to clutter Derrida's bio. --Altenmann >talk 06:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• no transwiki to quote: no reason. Just as well you may transquote the whole book. Only for the quotes which some RS deemed notable it makes sense to transquote. --Altenmann >talk 09:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: @Mathglot: thanks for the ping! I'm not sure how to best handle this type of case. It's not Derrida's most influential concept, but there are some secondary sources, like [94] and [95]. I don't know whether they are sufficient to justify have a separate article rather than including the discussion in a parent article on Derrida or Derrida's philosophy. Maybe in principle, one could make an argument for notability. However, the current content, consisting of a minimal explanation and two quotes, does not really justify a separate article. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outside the whole framework, the current article pretty much incomprehensible. Extensive cherry-picked quotes are of no help, because Derrida's writings are not for feeble minds. --Altenmann >talk 08:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A bit o/t, but I couldn't help adding that whenever I read (or try to read) Derrida (not very often), I can't decide if I have a feeble mind, or he does. Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge first paragraph into Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences and get rid of the gratuitous quotation. Not enough secondary coverage to warrant a separate article. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge It might be better to merge it in the related place. 110 and 135 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have a clear merge/redirect target in Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences. Normally I'd simply take this as an appropriate WP:ATD, but we have an explicit argument against redirecting in the discussion so far. So, one more round: redirect or just delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I don't think a great deal has changed since the previous AFD which I closed as G5, but was clearly going to end in delete otherwise. I'm unable to find any sources that come close to meeting WP:BIO and with an h-index of 10 it's unlikely that WP:PROF is met. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep Appears to be notable enough with his media presence and recognition. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid rationale. Where are the sources providing substantial, independent coverage? SmartSE (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt. Far WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. No GNG as few sources are independent of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this current PhD student. I guess there could be a case for WP:NCREATIVE with the podcast, but I do not see the reviews or other signs of impact (anyway, that would tend to make a case for a redirect to an article on the podcast). No other notability is apparent; in particular, I am not impressed by inclusion in listicles. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Expanding on my delete rationale. The subject has published several papers, some of them in good journals, as in the GS profile. All academics publish papers, and this in itself is WP:MILL: we look for impact for WP:NPROF notability. At first glance, the first paper is highly cited, but the citation count combines a paper of the subject (which has no citations) with a paper of some of his coauthors. The second item also combines several papers, although less abusively. In a high citation field, I don't think that this demonstrates the needed impact: it would be surprising for a PhD student to have the necessary notability. Authoring pieces in the popular press is similar; we do not consider reporters to be automatically notable. For WP:NPROF C7, I'm seeing a small number of quotations in a quotable field, and I think this also falls short. GNG notability appears to hinge on whether inclusion in a listicle contributes enough. Past discussion has been fairly skeptical of this. My view is that it contributes only slightly. I also wish to comment that I am concerned about a pattern where relatively new accounts that have not previously shown an interest in AfD leave a "keep" !vote here approximately halfway through a string of 10-20 AfD discussion !votes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (people) says :"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."

Hartley is recognised as "notably influential" within the realm of ideologies, extending beyond his biography as a subject of secondary sources. His contributions to various news outlets, along with his role in conducting interviews with contemporaries and prominent figures AND being interviewed by them for his research, underscore the significance of his work in the field

1. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-:inflation-canadian-government-borrowing-billions/

2.https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jon-hartley-trudeau-should-listen-to-elon-musk-on-productivity

3.https://conversableeconomist.com/2024/03/13/interview-with-stephen-levitt-my-career-and-why-im-retiring-from-academia/

4.https://capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/p/episode-28-steven-d-levitt-freakonomics

5.https://americancompass.org/critics-corner-with-jon-hartley/

6.https://johnbatchelor.substack.com/p/the-future-of-canada-with-jon-hartley

I created this page because I believed his information was fragmented across various sources on the internet, and it would be worthwhile to compile it all in one place on Wikipedia.

Another criterion under WP:NACADEMIC states that a subject must "have had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." This criterion seems to apply to Hartley, given the influence of his research published in journals such as...

1.Journal of Financial Economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/660506eb488a1777a90db94a/1711605484880/HartleyJermann_2024_JFE.pdf

2.Publications under Harvard Business School https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=67312

3.Publications under Economic Letters https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabdb744edb5235541b0b1/1676328375934/HartleyEL2021.pdf

4.Publication under Jurnal of Urban economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabcff916adf2105c011b0/1676328191950/GyourkoHartleyKrimmel_JUE_2021.pdf

Fenharrow (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that this meets the 7th criteria of WP:NACADEMIC due to his publications in the Journal of Financial Economics and his appearances/contributions to mainstream media sources and think tanks. He seems to have been frequently interviewed by prominent institutions, the Wharton School as an example. This also seems to be notable since he has been covered in various RSes such as The Globe and Mail, National Post, and more. Lastly, there are lots of professors who have fewer or a similar amount of RSes, content, and notability and remain on Wikipedia and are not being nominated for deletion. Examples include but are not limited to Herman Clarence Nixon, Daniel Nugent, Thomas Sakmar, Avery Craven, James L. Fitzgerald, Lawrence M. Friedman, H. Gregg Lewis, Guy A. Marco, and more. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gjb0zWxOb Sorry but I dont see how writing a couple of articles in newspapers qualifies for NPROF#7, can you specify what exactly his impact was? If such an impact was indeed present, then it should be possible to find WP:RS to cover this impact, without such sources I think NPROF#7 will not apply. While he did write articles in Globe and Mail and NP, he was not covered by these outlets as far as I can see (see WP:JOURNALIST), the coverage would have to be a profile about him to count towards notability. Most of the people you listed had a long and illustrious academic and public career and were notable due to their academic impact as indicated by experts in the field, not really comparable to here (actually making the point here that this is WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 14:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wharton School article, published by a highly reputable academic institution, clearly qualifies as a profile and underscores Hartley's recognition in academia. But even putting WP:NPROF aside, I think it's evident he independently meets WP:GNG. Per WP:SIGCOV, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the standard, and that is plainly met here. This includes not just op-eds he authored, but also interviews such as in L'Express. This coverage goes well beyond routine mentions and shows that he is regarded as a notable public commentator and scholar. GNG simply requires reputable, independent sources, which he has here. Also, extensive op-eds should not be so quickly dismissed as they are directly relevant to NPROF#7 which requires that, "The person has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I found he has published work ranging from Globe and Mail, National Post, and USA Today. These are not blogs, they are professionally vetted publications that only platform notable experts. This certainly conforms with the requirement of NPROF#7. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete clear case of WP:TOOSOON, likely notable in a few years. Writing/publishing articles does not make a person notable by itself, see WP:NPROF and WP:NJOURNALIST so I dont believe that the listing of articles above contributes to notability. --hroest 20:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This article seems to have been deleted previously due to a lacking of sources that were acceptable by our standards at the time of its prior publication on Wikipedia. However, as of 2025 there seems to be more than enough reliable and independent sources covering the subject of the article. In the two plus years since the prior AfD, sources for the subject appear to be better and more relevant and independent. The subject is pretty clearly active and well established in academia. WP:SIGCOV easily passes. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - winning a made up in one day Forbes award for an up and coming but run of the mill academic. WP:NOTFB. I'm willing to change my mind about this if evidence of full tenure or high citation numbers is added. Right now, he's a fellow at a think tank that has long ago become subject to donor pressure. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Jon Hartley meets the criteria for notability under WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC, and concerns about WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTFB do not seem to be applicable in this case. His research appears to have been published in reliable journals such as the Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of Political Economy: Microeconomics, and Economics Letters. A Google search reveals Hartley to have been featured in sources including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, and National Post. The sources demonstrate significant coverage and in reliable, independent sources, meeting WP:GNG. His recognition by Forbes in their 30 Under 30 list for Law & Policy in 2017 further demonstrates notability. Unclasp4940 (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Publishing papers is what every academic does - it definitely does not confer notability. Similarly, the articles in reliable sources are written by him, not about him and that is a crucial difference - the coverage is not about him. SmartSE (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing stuff contributes nothing to notability. It is having the publications noted (cited) by others that gives notability through WP:Prof#C1. There is nothing like enough of that here. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG so the arguments about the SNG (which I did not analyze) are not relevant. IMO exceeds the norm for GNG compliance, including several GNG references. Article really needs expansion using material from those references, but that's an article development issues rather than one for here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  North8000, I respect your opinion and experience on AfDs, and I always aim to be persuadable. Would you perhaps detail how you think the sources meet GNG and SIGCOV? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've done several thousand NPP reviews and will tell my overall "take" on it. I look at it holistically, including the multiple relevant guidelines and policies combined and the normal community standards of applying them. Using the reference numbers in the article version as of the date of this post, IMO #2 and #5 meet the norm for GNG interpretation, even if not 100% bulletproof. The Forbes listing (with bio) bolsters that. High ranking places providing his bio are not GNG but also reflective. Same with what's in some of the other sources. As noted I don't think that the academic SNG is needed, (and I've not analyzed that) but at quick glance some strong and detailed arguments have been presented that he also meets the SNG which would be a "belt and suspenders" thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have a lot of experience with the SNG, and I do not think he is very close to meeting WP:NPROF C1 (the main criterion). WP:NPROF C7 is pretty consonant with GNG. Of course, a pass of GNG suffices. As far as that goes, the Wharton piece (#2) fails independence, and I do not place weight on Forbes. I agree that source #1 should be given some weight, although it is an WP:RSOPINION by the subject. I will mull over. Thank you! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The "Forbes 30 Under 30" designation is not made-up per WP:MADEUP. It involves a thorough vetting process by industry experts too, not just journalists. Overall, the subject's work meets WP:PROF's first stated criterion, and his Google Scholar profile shows a strong body of work in economics that has been cited extensively. The page can be improved, but it's worth keeping in my view. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  how did you evaluate his academic profile? His GS profile is far from reaching any of the 8 criteria outlined there. Neither his citation count nor his h-index is anywhere close to a pass of the "average professor" test. Yes it is impressive for a junior researcher, but nowhere close to a lasting impact on his discipline. We cannot go on future potential but on available evidence. --hroest 03:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His GS profile is a long long way from meeting WP:Prof#C1. Maybe he will come up to standard in future but not yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like WP:NPROF is a red herring here. At any rate it would be really quite extraordinary for someone to pass WP:NPROF before they've even got their doctorate. What isn't clear to me from this discussion is whether he meets WP:GNG in spite of not meeting WP:NPROF.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Majayjay 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)

Declined PROD with promise to improve refs. Added references do not indicate anything more than results or routine coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing significant coverage here. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 05:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 10:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the page pretty much sounds like a big advertisement. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback! I'm new to writing articles, but feel like this company does a lot for the environment and green building and is certainly notable. I will work on notability and can certainly add more reliable references and rework the article to remove the promotional tone. Jonasstaff (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonasstaff: If you have WP:THREE WP:SECONDARY sources, post them up so everybody can review them. WP:NCORP is very specific on what can be included as a reference. A lot of references that have been added to the article PR and branding. If three decent sources please post them. scope_creep^Talk 18:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on removing the promotional tone to the article and adding a mix of sources that are significant, independent, reliable and secondary. I think green building is significant and expanding, and Verdical Group is well known in California, one of the biggest green building hubs. In addition, their Net Zero Conference is also one of the largest in the world. They seem notable, so trying my best to do that without it sounding like an advertisement. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you! Jonasstaff (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It not the fact its promotional although that is part of it, its completly fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 06:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 massacres of Syrian Druze (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)

Currently, I believe that this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Southern Syria clashes (April 2025–present) since information about the killings has been added into that article. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the name is not agreed upon and widely sourced as in the 2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites, the reporting always puts it as a detail and not the main event (again as in the Alawites' case). While the events are devastating, I do not see them as more than a section in the Southern clashes article, and also we should refrain from solely using SOHR for these.

- RamiPat (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say the reporting puts it as a detail? Many of the citations already in the article talk about it as the main event. It's also causing ripple effects in Israel and many Israeli articles are talking about it as the main event. E.g. 1 and [-- 2A05:BB80:32:B913:5D54:1EA:B2D5:200E (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't call it a massacre if 5 civilians died alongside 35 Hijri loyalists. I agree with asclepias. Most of the information is either reused or is redundant enough to be put in Druze in Syria and/or Southern Syria clashes (April 2025–present) TedKekmeister (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Events, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The scope is valid, but the name could be changed to something more reflective of reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article in its current form blatantly misrepresents what happened like the usual Assadist propaganda that has been in Wikipedia since 2013. Daseyn (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just change the name like it is in southern Syria clashes JaxsonR (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clashes denotes a clash between the military of one side and another. But here we also see targeted killings of civillians which are reported on by RS and in enough quantity to justify a separate page Genabab (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Skitash (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add another comment, the SOHR numbers state the total number of executed civilian Druze as 10. I have to mention that there are 42 Druze that were ambushed in Suwayda Governorate on the Damascus-Suwayda motorway, but the SOHR does not mention wether they were fighters, civilians, or a mix of both. But the news outlets that do specify mention only fighters (like France 24). I do believe the civilians killed were massacred, but they were not mass massacres for a separate article on them like the massacres of Alawites, which that article is also under discussion to be merged with "Western Syria clashes (March 2025–present)"

- RamiPat (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NEVENT is satisfied. Delete arguments so far are not policy-based. Title or potential NPOV violations do not justify deletion. Redundant forks require merge discussions, not AfD discussions.TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally, I disagree; WP:REDUNDANTFORK has been used in previous deletion discussions, whether for deletion (this, this, or this), merging (this, this, or this), or redirecting (this, this, or this), thus I believe it is a valid argument to use. Considering that the two articles' scopes are very similar and this article's relevant content already was moved into there (and this article only has 3 paragraphs about the killings, so it can be fully merged without much trouble anyway), I think that this article is redundant. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Southern Syria clashes (April–May 2025): In addition to being a POV content fork from the page Southern Syria clashes (April–May 2025), the article is a complete hoax. No reliable source described the events as a "massacre" or claimed that Druze civilians were targeted. Majority of the Syrian Druze are opposed to the pro-Israeli Druze seperatist groups of Hikmat al-Hijri.

The page, which was a crystal ball created on 1 May 2025, contradicted media reports that Druze factions had reached de-escalation agreements with the Syrian government by then. For example, BBC reported on the ceasefire and end of the clashes on 1 May 2025. The BBC report's summary of the clashes during 28-30 April 2025 made no mention of any "massacre". Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was fighting as late as yesterday despite the ceasefire, and there have been many extrajudicial killings of Druze. Either the Golani regime doesn't have control of the myriad Jihadi factions that see Druze and Alawites as justified for slaughter (regardless of the past regime), or he condones it. FunkMonk (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clashes have ended. Also, fighting=/=massacre. In this case, 5 civilians were killed in cross-fire, which isnt a "massacre", much less "massacres". Apart from this, in wikipedia, pages of massacres are titled based on their location. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. IdanST (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not redundant. Much of the material, especially in the background section, is not covered in the "clashes" article. Eigenbra (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The background section can be moved to the Druze in Syria article, and the only info from this article not in the Clashes article is the journalists being arrested, "At least eight government-affiliated fighters were also killed", and the Sahnaya Mayor's death. The poultry facility civilians, Damascus-Suwayda Road ambush, and Suwayda villages being shelled are in the Clashes article, and having a separate article for 4 sentences about the same topic does feel like a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose moving the background section as you suggest. It serves as useful background in this article. There is no reason to move it. Eigenbra (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven’t adequately explained why this article isn’t a redundant fork (nor why relevant background info shouldn’t be moved to a more appropriate and more detailed article). You’ve just argued that the background info of this article is useful, but should an article be kept just because it has background info? Shouldn’t the article’s titular content be more important to determine if this should be kept or deleted? Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet. Maybe a source analysis would be helpful determining an outcome as there are claims from some editors that this article is false. If you make further comments, please ground them in policy and guidelines, not political opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Southern Syria clashes (April–May 2025) or keep. The broader article is relatively short, so the standalone article, which has a lot of redundant background content, is currently not justified. That being said, I think this matter could be addressed as a regular editorial dispute in the talk pages. The article could be standalone if there's enough distinct content justifying it. MarioGom (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dabzee discography (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 GNG and the one reference provided in the article does not cover the subject in depth https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/music/malayalam/thallumaala-song-manavaalan-thug/amp_videoshow/93500395.cms Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:48, 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} 10:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Should seem obvious, but just in case, if consensus is reached that this article shouldn't be kept, merge into Dabzee#Discography instead of deletion. it's lio! | talk | work 10:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thermax (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)

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like announcing annual/quarterly results, joint ventures, capacity expansion news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, but also because it's so poorly written as to be indecipherable. Bearian (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources.- Imcdc Contact 01:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an easy WP:NCORP pass as I can see adequate analyst coverage [96] [97] [98] and significant media coverage [99] [100] [101]. Large publicly traded corporations are generally considered notable, yet the nominator continues to send such articles to AfD, seemingly without conducting WP:BEFORE checks. Yuvaank (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @CharlieMehta I noticed you are experienced in checking the independence of analyst reports. Can I please request you perform a check for this? Imcdc Contact 01:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi there, Sure... I need a bit of time for this. But, won’t be voting in this AfD due to WP:CANVASS. Charlie (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Checking the independence of analysts reports (shared by Yuvaank) as per the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#We_Need_to_Revisit_WP:LISTED_Rules_for_Indian_Listed_Companies. Please be aware that the RSN discussion is not yet concluded.

1. Report by HDFC Securities - There is a disclaimer on slide number 11, which clearly states the following; "HSL or its associates might have received any compensation from the companies mentioned in the report during the period preceding twelve months from t date of this report for services in respect of managing or co-managing public offerings, corporate finance, investment banking or merchant banking, brokerage services or other advisory service in a merger or specific transaction in the normal course of business."

2. Report by YES Securities - The disclaimer on page number 11 explicitly states the following: "Since YSL and its associates are engaged in various businesses in the financial services industry, they may have financial interest or may have received compensation for investment banking or merchant banking or brokerage services or for any other product or services of whatsoever nature from the subject company(ies) in the past twelve months or associates of YSL may have managed or co-managed public offering of securities in the past twelve months of the subject company(ies) whose securities are discussed herein." and "Associates of YSL may have actual/beneficial ownership of 1% or more and/or other material conflict of interest in the securities discussed herein."

3. Report by PL Capital - At page number 8, in the Disclaimer section (Indian clients), we can find the following texts; "PL may from time to time solicit or perform investment banking or other services for any company mentioned in this document." and "PL or its associates might have received compensation from the subject company in the past twelve months."

These disclaimers are printed in a very small fonts in most cases, and we only noticed them recently because of Senco Gold's AfD. It's apparent that such 'analyst' reports don't qualify as reliable under WP:IS. Charlie (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlieMehta Thank you for your analysis. Imcdc Contact 10:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Analyst report which contain disclaimers are not analyst reports, they're promotional advertorials. None of the sourcing meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment CharlieMehta has quoted what appear to be generic disclaimers that every analyst must print on every single report, as required by SEBI guidelines for all registered analysts. We need to look at their "disclosure" specifically about the subject company of this particular report:

1. The analyst who authored the HDFC Securities report writes on Page 11, We also certify that no part of our compensation was, is, or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendation(s) or view(s) in this report. Research Analyst or her relative or HDFC Securities Ltd. does not have any financial interest in the subject company. Further Research Analyst or her relative or HDFC Securities Ltd. or its associate does not have any material conflict of interest.
2. The analyst who authored the Yes Securities report writes on Page 11, The analyst hereby certifies that opinion expressed in this research report accurately reflect his or her personal opinion about the subject securities and no part of his or her compensation was, is or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendation and opinion expressed in this research report, along with a table that clearly states that the analyst and Yes Securities Limited have no financial interest, no material conflict of interest, received no compensation from the subject company, not performed any investment banking or merchant banking or brokerage services, and not co-managed public offering of securities for the subject company which dispels the wording in the standard disclaimer.
3. The analyst who authored the PL Capital report writes on Page 8, We also certify that no part of our compensation was, is, or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendation(s) or view(s) in this report.

Pinging @CharlieMehta: so that they can keep this in mind for this as well as any future AfDs of WP:LISTED companies. Yuvaank (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that as well. The disclosure appears to contradict the disclaimer within the same document. While SEBI likely has its own rationale for requiring both, it seems that disclosures suggest an absence of bias, whereas disclaimers imply that bias might exist but is being acknowledged to avoid responsibility or legal consequences. This contradiction leads me to question the independency of such reports, but ultimately, the interpretation is up to the majority. Charlie (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cooper (soccer) (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 not sure what makes Cooper more worthy of an article than other collegiate soccer coaches, especially since he has a non-notable playing career. The most notable thing about him (from what I understand) is his long tenure and winning a coach of the year award which may be enough to warrant an article, but I'm not sure so I've put it up. Raskuly (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and California. Raskuly (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find significant coverage of the player/coach. Most sources are primary. I don't think winning a coach of the year award is enough without in depth coverage of other accomplishments. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There's SIGCOV here. He passes WP:NCOLLATH for being named the number one college coach in the U.S... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Then I'm in favor of keeping the article. Raskuly (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  pinging @Anonrfjwhuikdzz: and @GiantSnowman: for thoughts on this. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I still don't think there is coverage indicating Cooper is notable enough for an article. The article being pointed to as significant coverage on jweekly.com is local and relies heavily on comments from Cooper himself making the source partially primary and not entirely independent of the subject.

  I also want to note that simply being named top coach does not mean someone is notable, it just means a search for in-depth coverage is more likely to be successful. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We need more than one good source - if you find a second similar to Jweekly then please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What's the point of having NCOLLATH if we're going to delete those who both pass it and have SIGCOV? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The guidelines for WP:NCOLLATH aren't a pass/fail system. They just indicate whether a search for significant coverage is likely to succeed. See Q2 in the FAQ at the top of the NSPORT page. The reality is that certain college sports don't receive much attention including football (soccer) in the US so a football coach meeting a bullet point in NCOLLATH is not a good indicator of notability. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think anyone is helped by knowing that "being the best coach in the U.S. is likely to result in significant coverage"... It either should have some weight at AFD or its useless. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• pinging WormEater13 who inappropriately close this. Per WP:SK#1, even if the nominator withdrawn, we should not close this as SK as there are 2 delete votes above. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Miminity - my apologies, I take full responsibility for this. I forgot to pay attention that there were two delete !votes, and this was a error on my part. Thank you for reverting. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's not obvious but the nominator is now arguing for a Keep so I think we can interpret that as a Withdrawal of the nomination. However there are two arguments for Deletion and an unbolded Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my withdraw. Raskuly (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No significant coverage, few source to verify notability and some of the source listed are just passing mention Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 01:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Kočik (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. I've found two potential secondary sources (1 & 2) referenced in the current state of the article, but the first thing that struck out to me is that they do not seem to be WP:SIGCOV, so there is no real reason to presume that the subject is notable as of right now. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Slovakia. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - in addition to the two sources above, I'm able to find quite a bit of material in Slovak sources (1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6) indicating he's at least regionally notable in Slovakia for his darting abilities. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – He is a young athlete who just started his career. Can anyone analyze whether or not the sources found by Ser! count towards WP:GNG?⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 5 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!} 01:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - There is nothing on the page that points towards GNG, but Ser! has added a number of new sources. [102] is an interview, so that is N per WP:IV. The others are all SIGCOV, but all focussing on him as a rising hope who is top of his youth class and even won a competition in the Netherlands. Now I don't know if we call darts players athletes, but I think WP:YOUNGATH applies in any case. He clearly made a stir in June 2022, after winning in the Netherlands, but these are youth tournaments, and the press interest in him is localised (although across Slovakia) and also occasioned, and thus primary news reporting. At this point I agree with the press reporting that he looks like a Slovak hopeful for great future success, but that is in the future. Draftify recognises that this may occur. However, there is a risk that the draft will be abandoned before the success occurs, which could be some time away. I would also be happy with a redirect to preserve page history. However, there is not much that is actually usable in the final article in what we have now (again, ther sourcing on the page as it is will not do). Failing agreement on a suitable redirect, I would see no problem with deletion. The article can be written if and when he achieves success in major tournaments and elicits significant secondary coverage. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Superboy (Kal-El) (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 wholly redundant to Superboy. It contains no distinct information. Recommend deletion or redirect. Swordofneutrality (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Superman The articles lead reads "Superboy is Superman in his preteen and teenage years." page is redundent since the two characters are the same Olliefant (she/her) 19:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Superboy#Kal-El - Redundant to both the main Superman and Superboy articles, both of which cover the fact that Kal-El went by Superboy as a teenager. Its particularly redundant to the latter, as that one already has the same extensive character biography and the coverage of the legal issues surrounding the character. Rorshacma (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—This is the original Superboy character, with a 40-year distinct publishing career of his own, as the lead, sole, or co-starring feature in around 600 comics (More Fun Comics 101-107, Adventure Comics 103-380 and 453-458, Superboy v1 1-258, New Adventures of Superboy 1-54, MFC 101-10), with a supporting cast, location, and mythology of his own, and a significant spin-off feature, the Legion of Super-Heroes, which co-starred with Superboy in Adventure and Superboy (and the Legion of Super-Heroes) in the latter part of their run. There's a reason the courts sided with Jerry Siegel and later, his family, in determining Superboy to be a separate creation... why DC credits the creation of Superboy to Siegel, and not Siegel and Shuster, every time any version of Superboy appears in their comics. He is a significant comic book character in his own right, and deserves his own Wikipedia entry. To answer couple cited reasons for deletion: Yes, he is the younger version of Superman... but that's precisely what makes his character unique. No other comic character has a younger (or older) version of themself with such a long, separate publication history. As for redundancy, it seems to me that the way to reduce redundancy is to revise both Superboy and Superboy (Kal-El) to reduce the redundancy. Greatly reduce the bio in the Superboy entry, and reduce the publication history section in Superboy (Kal-El). That would reduce the size of both articles. I would keep the discussion of the legal issues entirely to Superboy, leaving a mere mention in Superboy (Kal-El), along with a redirect.Spiderboy12 (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]