Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/TWP:AFD/T

29 June 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< June 28	June 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Astghik Safaryan

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

The article has only one reference, and that too is not reliable. I tried searching myself but couldn’t find any strong or credible sources. I don’t think this article deserves to stay on Wikipedia. Mehar R. Khan (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Women. Mehar R. Khan (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Telangana Gaddar Film Awards

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

Also see Telangana Gaddar Film Awards of 2024 up for deletion. Notability tag was objected to here so I did a thorough WP:BEFORE and found only announcements, press releases, and the typical churnalism that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The only thing it could possibly be notable for would be this controversy but do not think that rises to the level of notability. CNMall41 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keith N. Hamilton

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:CLERGY (note that the role of bishop in the LDS church closer to that of a Catholic Priest or a Methodist Minister, serving a only a local congregation, than to that of, e.g., a Catholic bishop, which is presumed notable). Sources consist of two articles mentioning Hamilton joining and leaving the Utah Parole board and his current employer's website. Jbt89 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Latter Day Saints and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Willis

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT, and WP:CLERGY. Sources consist of passing mentions in a human-interest story about the reactions of black Mormons to the passing of Thomas S. Monson, a local news article mentioning that Willis stepped down as high-school football coach, and two articles from the LDS church-owned Deseret News about the Genesis group mentioning that Willis has been active within it.

Willis's NFL career appears to have been unremarkable (11 games, 12 rushing attempts, 35 yards). Jbt89 (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Latter Day Saints, American football, and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable like every modern NFL player: 1 2 3 etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Here's another source. Part 1, Part 2 ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bala Ganapathi William

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

Note: The AfD is initially nominated by PeepeeDino but they did not follow the process correctly.

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. The article relies entirely on primary sources, self-published material, and uncited claims. No independent, reliable secondary sources (e.g., reputable news outlets, books, academic journals) demonstrate significant coverage of the subject. Fails WP:BIO criteria for living persons. Subject appears to be a local entertainer without broad recognition. Sources cited (e.g., YouTube, personal websites, IMDb) are unreliable per WP:SPS. Previous "citation needed" tags (since 2022) remain unaddressed. Syn73 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Malaysia. Syn73 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Power

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

No notable independent wrestler. Worked mainly on independent level. Sources are WP:ROUTINE results of events, no in-deep coverage about her. A search shows only more ROUTINE events. [1] HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Slam Sports article is fine (Canoe was a news source at the time), the Cape Breton article below it is rather local. I'd count those as maybe 1.5 sources. I tried to find more, no sourcing that I can find. With at least one more RS, I'd probably give this a weak keep. Just not enough at this time for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Rocha

AfDs for this article:

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

No notable independent wrestler. Just worked on independent promotions. No in-deep sources about her, just WP:ROUTINE results of events. . [2] [3] Quick search shows 0 results HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, Portugal, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwo Kola-Ogunlade

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

Fails WP:BIO. Sources for this page largely fall into two categories:

Non-WP:SIGCOV sources where the subject is simply quoted [4] [5] [6] or his name is mentioned as winning a prize [7] [8].
Non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources such as organizations where the subject has worked or spoken [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

The best source is this article [14] but it is setting off promotional red flags for me. Why is a South African newspaper writing a profile of a Google West Africa employee with no connection to the country? Astaire (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Technology, and Nigeria. Astaire (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Servitor (chaos magic)

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

This article presents what appears to be fiction, or a component of some esoteric belief system, as fact (MOS:INUNIVERSE). Even if the concept were notable, it would need a rewrite from a real-world perspective (WP:TNT). But I doubt that it is notable: All cited sources appear to be associated with proponents of this belief system, rendering them insufficiently independent to be reliable. Sandstein 16:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party (Marxist–Leninist) of Panama

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

Although https://lesmaterialistes.com/english/maoism-polemic-launched-pce-cr-part mentions it that is not enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Panama. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamgha-e-Baqa

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

Was a contested redirect without improvement (an additional non-in-depth reference from an unreliable source doesn't count as an improvement). Lots of mentions, but I cannot find any in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Military, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a military decoration, and there are numerous other decorations as well which have their own separate article. This does not stay in limit of Pakistan but also Indian Armed Forces and US Armed Forces. For example see 50th Independence Anniversary Medal, 75th Independence Anniversary Medal, Paschimi Star, Operation Vijay Star, Siachen Glacier Medal, Sangram Medal, Operation Vijay Medal, Meritorious Unit Award (U.S. Air and Space Forces), Navy Ceremonial Duty Ribbon, Developmental Special Duty Ribbon, Recruiting Service Ribbon, Grover Loening Award and this list continues. For full list you may check some service medals at Awards and decorations of the Indian Armed Forces and Awards and decorations of the United States Armed Forces. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Innisfree (brand)

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

Article does not meet notability guidelines (WP:ORG). Almost all articles mentioning the brand are either promotional reviews, insignificant (only mention Innisfree as an example of a K-Beauty brand) or cover brand's PR events, such as opening of new stores.

I wasn't able to find any reliable independent resources describing the significance of this specific brand. fx (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and South Korea. fx (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Circle of Breda (Marxist–Leninist)

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

I cannot find enough good sources to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Netherlands. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Gee

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

Doesn't appear to have played in a competitive fixture for a fully professional team yet. Uhooep (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somto Boniface

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

Doesn't appear to have played in a competitive fixture for a fully professional team yet. Uhooep (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republican Union

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

Winning 2% of vote and 1 seat in parliament does not automatically make a party notable as far as I know. Really need someone who knows about Benin to find good sources. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Africa. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 2% of national vote and a seat in national parliament is definitely enough to claim notability. --Soman (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources please? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGSIG is clear that no organization (of which political parties are included) is awarded inherent notability for any reason. A political party having a seat in parliament is certainly a positive indicator that coverage may exist, but is not itself a guarantee in the same way WP:NPOL operates. Curbon7 (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brodi Hughes

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

Doesn't appear to have played in a competitive fixture for a fully professional team yet. Uhooep (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of Belgium – Marxist–Leninist

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

I found a few sources such as https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/belgium-1st/index.htm but not enough good ones to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Belgium. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Squid Game Deaths

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

Not encyclopedic; unsourced, reads like fan content grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability of the grouping can't even be established since there are no secondary sources used within this article per WP:NLIST. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 15:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, non-notable list with no secondary coverage. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Just because the show has a lot of deaths does not mean all of those deaths merit mention – if anything, it shows the opposite. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Van Dorn

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

Does not meet WP:NF, lacking significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Sources currently included are simply database listings and not actual coverage BOVINEBOY2008 09:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't find enough to establish where this passes NFF - it was made and it screened at Cannes, but didn't gain any sort of reviews to help establish notability. Nor did it screen in the parts of Cannes that would give notability for being part of that program (ie, Un Certain Regard). So a redirect sounds like the right option here, but we have two options. The first is to redirect to the director, Shane Stanley. The second is to redirect to Earl_Van_Dorn#Legacy, where there's a paragraph describing it. Offhand my thought is that it should redirect to Van Dorn, since the article has some info about it. I don't think that anything needs to be merged in, as the legacy section already has enough information to give context and I don't know that a legacy section on a biography would really be a good place to list filming times and locations. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be public knowledge, but the Cannes Film Festival was just last month, and reviews don’t typically come directly from that festival because it is technically an industry-buyer’s festival. While reviews can emerge from it, it often takes several months. Within that time, it’s common for platforms and distributors to license films, and that is followed by reviews. Cannes is not a "sink or swim" event where lack of immediate reviews indicates failure or irrelevance. That’s not at all how it works.

This film features industry-recognized actors such as D.B. Sweeney, Joe Lando, John James, and David Meadows. Its director, Shane Stanley, holds two Guinness World Records for "longest number one of a film" and is profiled on IndieActivity (see https://www.indieactivity.com/six-days-in-evergreen-by-shane-stanley-to-debut-at-cannes/ speaking about both the film and it being at Cannes festival. The film The Legend of Van Dorn is also listed on Stanley’s official website under his credits: https://www.shanestanley.net/about.

Coverage from Main Street Maury, the local media outlet near the filming location in Tennessee, includes a full report/article describing the film’s production and significance: https://mainstreetmediatn.com/articles/e-newsletter-mainstreetmaury/a-kind-of-mini-hollywood-confederate-general-biopic-wraps-in-columbia-raising-the-towns-cinematic-profile/. This is not a database listing — it’s coverage of a major SAG film that wrapped in Tennessee.

Additionally, the film’s composer, Steve Dorff, includes The Legend of Van Dorn in his list of film credits on his official website — alongside major Hollywood films like Tin Cup, The Last Boy Scout, Maverick, and Every Which Way But Loose with Clint Eastwood. Other names include Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, Russell Crowe, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bruce Willis, Halle Berry, Jodie Foster, Mel Gibson, Warren Beatty, and many others. You can see his website listing here: https://www.stevedorff.com/motion-pictures.

To recommend deletion based on a supposed lack of coverage — when there is already documented media coverage, a Cannes Film Festival screening, and participation from industry-recognized contributors seems clearly premature. Many films on Wikipedia have had far less in place when their articles were first created.

The article reflects a film with demonstrated notability, industry recognition, and verified distribution (Artist View Entertainment https://www.artistviewent.com/films/detail?id=147ef3c1-56ee-ef11-82a3-0e4a64f8a357). With a Cannes Film Festival screening, press coverage, and a compelling historical subject portrayed by recognizable talent, it clearly meets the threshold for inclusion. Deletion would not only overlook its cultural and historical relevance, but also contradict the very purpose of preserving notable works in film and history. Historytenn (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the first point - most media outlets will post their reviews while a film festival is still running. Big festivals like Cannes draw a lot of attention, so they know that posting a review while the festival is still running will gain more attention. While yes, some outlets will prioritize the high ticket films and save the others for later reviews, by large those tend to get released closer to the festival screening in order to capitalize on the Cannes name. It's not impossible for a film to receive a festival review a month later, but it does become less likely because most reviewers want to review something while it's fresh in their minds, especially if the film is not readily available to them for a re-watch and refresh.

To also add on to this point, we cannot base notability on reviews that have not been posted. Maybe reviews from RS will get posted next week, but then again maybe they won't. We can't base notability on coverage that does not exist during the AfD's run. If this was say, the week before Cannes then maybe the AfD could be relisted for an additional week to see if reviews would come in, but the film has already premiered and there are no reviews. I must also acknowledge what duffbeerforme has stated - this might have screened adjacent to Cannes without being part of the festival's official selections. That doesn't mean that the film won't receive reviews - there are a number of films that have been screened through things like Marché du Film and received scores of reviews, but it can make it less likely.

As far as the notability of the people involved in the film, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. What this means is that even if the people involved are notable, that does not make the film automatically notable. A notable cast and crew can increase the chances of coverage, but it is never a guarantee.

Finally, keep in mind that this AfD is to determine if the film meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The absence of sources that fulfill this criteria doesn't mean that the film is a failure or that it can't go on to receive coverage. It just means that it does not pass notability guidelines at this point in time. There are many films that have failed notability guidelines, sometimes for years, and then gone on to receive attention later on down the line. I've run into many topics (film, people, events, etc) that are of obvious importance, but fail notability guidelines because they just don't have the type of coverage Wikipedia requires. I remember volunteering at the Library of Virginia and running into hundreds of cases. They were of obvious importance to the Library, as they considered the person/topic important enough to archive, but there just wasn't coverage. So I understand your frustration, but none of this is a comment on the quality of the film. I'll go over the sources on this AfD's talk page, to explain why they do not meet NFILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I must also ask - are you involved with the film? While I was searching I found some slight evidence that you might have been involved, but put this aside as I found it to be too light. With your response and as your more major edits have been about the film, I must ask - what is your involvement with the film? Were you part of the cast/crew or someone who was asked to come write about the film on Wikipedia? Even if your involvement was say, checking historical accuracy on the film, this must be disclosed. You can edit with a conflict of interest, but it must be transparent. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to show that it's extremely common for reviews to come out during Cannes - this article by Variety was posted the day after Cannes finished. It contains links to reviews posted by Variety staff during the festival, typically the day after the respective film premiered (ie, during the festival itself). Deadline also posted a list of the Cannes reviews that they released during the festival. Someone for the New Yorker did post a ranking of the films the day after as well. This reddit thread even references some of the reviews some of the films are getting, particularly Alpha.

It's extremely common for reviews to post during the film or very immediately after. Now, some films will get few or no reviews and then gain coverage once it receives an official release by way of theatrical, VOD, or similar, but that is separate. Media outlets are typically not going to see something at Cannes , review it, and then sit on the review until months later. To restate what I said earlier, we cannot judge notability on the idea that it might get reviews or that it's likely to get more coverage. It's entirely possible it could, but it's also very possible that it could officially release and then get no attention. If the film was not an official part of Cannes, as has been suspected as there's no mention of this film on the Cannes website and searching Google for the film's title and Cannes produces nothing from Cannes itself, but was rather shown at one of the festivals or events that tend to also run alongside Cannes, then the changes of this happening rise quite a bit. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the state where it was filmed (Tennessee) and started hearing about it being filmed here last summer. I majored in history and enjoy Civil War history (probably a little too much) so I have an interest in it and it's local to me. I am also extrememly familiar with Earl Van Dorn and his assasination since it happened in Tennessee (why the movie was filmed here). I've heard about that all of my life. So it made sense to me to make a page about the film. I don't see that as odd. Historytenn (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ReaderofthePack, The claim of screening at the Cannes Film Festival is deceptive at best. The so called Artist View Entertainment lineup is not part of the actual festival. Artist View is a film distributor that looks like just shows their own films while attending festivals. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, probably Marché du Film. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a mention here that it screened at the TV Movies Screenings Festival. There's mention here that someone from AVE was at Cannes with the movie, but that could mean anything from it screening somewhere in or around the festival or that he was shopping it around. It's pretty common for people to shop non-screening or even as of yet uncreated films at film festivals. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a free venue for promoting upcoming films. Lacks independent coverage. notability is not inherited from people paid to work on the film. That it might get reviewed in the future is crystal ball speculation. The only reason it is currently mentioned in the Earl Von Dorn article is because the person who created this article spammed it all over the place and if this film is not notable then that mention is undue and should be removed so opposing a redirect there. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's some mild coverage, generally local, so I think at least a sentence is probably warranted. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was a claim earlier in this discussion that the film's director, Shane Stanley, "holds two Guinness World Records for 'longest number one of a film'". I don't understand what this means. Longest number one what? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really doesn't matter, Guinness records aren't used to show notability anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only sort of media coverage I found is the Main Street Media article already listed in sourcing. I didn't see anything on French websites, so I'm not sure the film got much critical attention... Might be TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ćaci u školu

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

This article is not in line with several Wikipedia guidelines, such as Notability and Political POV. AI-generated text (by LLM) is incorporated in the article, as evidenced by another user. Despite the creator of this article denying these claims, they seem to have used AI-generated text in their subsequent comments as well (Source 1, Source 2, Source 3).

Also, the information has already been covered in the article 2024–present Serbian anti-corruption protests. All previous articles for historic protests in Serbia have contained all their necessary and verified information within main articles, not branching out to create individual pages for each camp, graffiti, slogan, act of vandalism, tour, nor any other individual/minor act related to the protests. This precedent can easily lead to an influx of spam articles that will just clutter the site, with the added problem of the text generated by AI.

The goal of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. It should not be a place for articles (that have AI-generated text) with information which is hard to verify, rather providing summaries that are verifiable and neutral point-of-view text done by real people. Nickpunk (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nickpunk (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024–present Serbian anti-corruption protests, per nom; cross-wiki AI-generated political POV fork. This topic should be covered within the existing main article. I feel a strong argument for that within this request (paragraph 2). I initially suggested speedy deletion, but it looks like 100% overlap on GPTZero wasn't a valid reason. (-.-) We definitely should have stricter AI rules. – Aca (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the article deletion proposal

This is the first time I am writing a response to a proposal for the deletion of an article in the English language. I am writing it in Serbian and then I will translate it into English, because although I have a good understanding of the English language, I am not sure I will write the response exactly as I want to. If I make a procedural mistake or do something I shouldn't, I would ask for help from the more experienced.

First, I want to provide the context for the article's creation. Last year in Novi Sad, an accident occurred due to the collapse of the railway station canopy, which caused various events in Serbia. A few months after the tragedy, students of the most famous Novi Sad gymnasium, Jovan Jovanović Zmaj, organized a protest at the school and in front of it. Immediately after that, an unknown person wrote graffiti with a spelling mistake on the entrance gate. Very surprisingly, this inscription caused strong reactions, became a real phenomenon, and the first word of that graffiti became a synonym for something that greatly bothers the current government in Serbia. At first, they tried to mock it, they themselves put "I am Caci too" inscriptions on their profiles, wore T-shirts with the same inscription, and this did not lead to the desired reactions.

The reason I wrote the article is that while walking through the city I live in, I saw tour guides several times bringing groups of tourists to the place where the graffiti was written and, in addition to the standard story about history, they also shared some information about this graffiti.

I tried to write the article as correctly as possible. I am not a member of any political party, nor do I support either side in the written text. I just factually stated the facts. It might seem that one graffiti should not have its own page on Wikipedia, but this graffiti is different and has caused many reactions and consequences. It has even become a kind of nascent tourist attraction.

To understand the context, you should know that an attempt was made to delete the article on the Serbian Wikipedia as well; a vote was held, and out of just over 2000 active editors, three editors voted for deletion. In my opinion, there were no reasons for this. According to the rules of the Serbian Wikipedia, for an article to be deleted, a majority of votes for deleting the article is required, and 5 is the minimum number of those who voted for its deletion. Since three editors voted for deletion, the vote was declared unsuccessful and, according to the rules, cannot be repeated for the next 60 days. A discussion is underway to change this rule so that voting can be repeated at shorter intervals.

There is a group of editors who are very interested in having the article deleted on both the Serbian and English Wikipedia. They will stop at practically nothing. And all because of an article about a graffiti. For me, this was a big surprise because I did not expect such a reaction.

I am currently reading the rules https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=digital ID&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Notability

The introduction is not difficult. It can be immediately said that all information in the article can be verified, reliable and independent sources are also cited, and in no case are they tabloid sources as stated.

"Presumed" - there is significant coverage in reliable sources, much more and broader, but the article lists 10 or 15. The number of sources could be increased, there are plenty of them.

"Significant coverage" - there is no original research, the sources have dealt with the topic and are not just superficially mentioned in them.

"Reliable" - the sources are reliable, some have Wikipedia pages so it can be easily checked what kind of sources were used.

"Sources" - there are multiple sources, and if necessary, I can make an effort to find additional ones.

"Independent of the subject" - sources from those who wrote the graffiti were not used, although officially the person is unknown, and unofficially it is suspected that it was done by government supporters because in previous cases they had also painted graffiti in an organized manner (on sidewalks, building facades, schoolyards, and the like).

The proposer's note is that the information can be implemented in the article about the protests; in my opinion, this is not practical because that article is already too long and the topic has already met the notability requirements.

Perhaps it would be easier to write a response or correct the article if the proposer for deletion stated something specific that is incorrect or unclear in the article?

As for the Political POV, I have absolutely no desire to take sides and I tried to write the article that way. Again, if something needs to be corrected and supplemented, I am at your disposal.

There are also arguments on the talk page.

On this issue of deletion, as the author of the first version of the article, I will not declare my position (it's possible that this is not even allowed). I can only say that I am available to help. Maybe I would have written a response earlier, but my old PC was acting up a bit, so I had to remove the power supply and lubricate the old fan with a ball bearing!

And even if the article is deleted, it's not the end of the world; it was written with the best of intentions. I would prefer for it to remain and to document the events in an objective and reliable way. If it needs to be fixed, if something is not written in the best way, because I have the impression that even though at this moment it is just a graffiti, and a removed one at that, a memorial plaque will stand in its place one day.

-- Mmns21 (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article hasn't covered this topic in a non-neutral way - it has relayed information from news sources about it. I've already had to revert part of this edit of the nominator [15] [16] because they seemingly couldn't distinguish sources writing about this group from "discrimination" and "class-based slurs". Please review the WP:NPOV policy again.

The notability claim is a bit odd, given that the use of this term has spread to a lot of the foreign coverage of these events. A quick search brings up e.g. Jutarnji list tag, Večernji list tag, Index.hr tag, BBC in Serbian has an article about it [17], as does Miljenko Jergović [18] It's not unreasonable to assume that if an average English reader encounters this sort of a foreign term, that they would benefit from an explanation about how it came about and what it means.

If there's any AI slop in the article, please identify and clean it up - that is not a cause for deletion by itself. I skimmed the article before and it wasn't very obvious, so this seems like a less than a major issue to me.

On the matter of how the encyclopedia should organize this information - this term is closely connected to the protests and can be described there, but the protest article is at this point 447 KB long already, so I'm not sure why we shouldn't split some of it out.

Overall, this seems like a tendentious nomination. Just because someone doesn't like that a term of ridicule for something caught on, that doesn't mean that the encyclopedia can't have a reasonable article for it. (Keep) --Joy (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have to agree with Joy that this is a tendentious nomination. This is is one of a series of attempts by two editors to get this and the related article Ćaciland Protest Camp deleted. They tried making speedy deletion requests for both of them, on completely spurious grounds; when they were declined they posted further speedy deletion requests on equally spurious grounds; they too were declined, so they have moved on to AfD. From reading what those editors have said relating to this, in different places, it is clear that their reason for wanting these articles deleted is that they don't like the expression "Ćaci u školu", as it is used contemptuously, and they find it offensive. However, the fact that something is offensive to some people (or even to all people) is not a reason for not having an article about it; the word "nigger" and the Nazi party are both regarded as offensive by most people, but we have articles about both of them.

Having found that I don't like it isn't going to get the article deleted, the editors concerned have tried to find other justifications for deletion, but they are spurious. * If there is AI-generated text in the article (I don't know whether there is) and if being AI-generated has resulted in poor quality, it can be dealt with by editing; it is not a reason for deletion. * Not "in line with" the notability guidelines? Yes it is: the expression has attracted coverage in multiple international sources. * "Political POV"? I don't see any promotion of a political point of view, but if there is one then again it can be corrected by editing. * "Also, the information has already been covered in the article 2024–present Serbian anti-corruption protests"? No it hasn't; there are two short sentences related to the expression "Ćaci u školu"; there is not coverage of any significant part of the content of this article. * "Create individual pages for each camp, graffiti, slogan, act of vandalism"? Nobody is suggesting doing that: this is about one expression which originated in one graffito, but which has moved on and is now far more than that. * "This precedent can easily lead to an influx of spam articles that will just clutter the site"? I'm not even going to grace that nonsense with an explanation of why it's nonsense. * "Information which is hard to verify"? Not hard at all; just look a at the cited references, and if you don't think that's enough then two seconds on Google will give you more. JBW (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'll have to respond to a few generalizations and allegations made here. I didn't post any "further speedy deletion requests", which you implied. I made a request on 19 June, which you declined. I thanked you for your consideration, and I haven't made new requests afterward. As a student myself, I strongly support these protests, and I don't find myself offended by this word in any way possible, contrary to what you wrote. I simply believe these topics shouldn't exist as a stand-alone articles as they are POV forks. If you are not familiar with the current political landscape in Serbia, the protesters are calling the government supporters "ćaci", while, on the other hand, the government (read: regime) supporters are describing the protesters as "naci" ("Nazi"). In this polarizing environment, having a separate article for this graffiti (despite the fact that similar articles about graffiti do not exist for other previous protests in Serbia) can be considered biased. In that sense, the very existence of this article is seen as POV forking. Your analogy about the n-word is not valid, as we already have plenty of articles on Wikipedia about ethnic, racial, and other slurs. We also have articles about most major political parties, so I find your analogy with the Nazi party nonsense (as you say), and it might be a nice depiction of the Godwin's law.

Furthermore, I'm very concerned with your statement that you "don't know whether there is [AI-generated text in the article]", despite being a long-standing English Wikipedia administrator. LLMs have tendency of adding adverbial phrases that just re-explain the previous stuff while editorializing. Can you please elaborate on how sentences like this don't sound like AI to you:

The term's journey from a simple misspelling to a complex political metaphor has been cited by analysts as an example of protest culture's power to reclaim and repurpose symbols in contemporary Serbia.

Puns such as "Prelazak Đ u Ć – lojalizacija" ("The shift from Đ to Ć – loyalization") circulated widely, playfully linking the spelling error to political loyalty.

The grammatical error became the immediate focus of public attention, overshadowing the intended message.

What began as an online joke quickly transformed into a significant cultural and political symbol.

According to academic analysis, anti-government protesters strategically reclaimed the term, turning it "into a tool of ridicule against fabricated state narratives and those participating in state-orchestrated pro-government rallies."

etc., etc. – Aca (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aca

I have no intention of responding to the whole of this wall of text, most of which is irrelevant anyway. However, to answer your request to "elaborate on how sentences like [those that you quote] don't sound like AI to [me]", I did not say that they don't. What I said was that I don't know whether there is AI-generated text or not, not that there isn't any. The whole point I was making (or trying to make; at least for you I have evidently failed to do so) is that whether there is AI-generated text or not is irrelevant, so it isn't worth considering. I don't know whether there's AI-generated text because I haven't bothered to investigate whether there is; I haven't bothered to investigate because it's irrelevant. JBW (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: So, you brought irrelevant information into the discussion, and after confronting a response, you state that you "have no intention of responding to the whole of this wall of text". Very nice. Anyway, your comment clearly proves that you haven't even put effort into reading the article. Nevertheless, thank you for your elaboration and clarification regarding your point. – Aca (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Please don't twist my words to claim that I said things which I didn't say. I have indeed read the article; in the course of doing so I concentrated on considering features which might be relevant to whether deletion would be justified, not on other features which are irrelevant to that question. (2) I offer you my advice that this kind of attack on editors with whom you disagree will not increase the weight given to what you say; if anything, the contrary. JBW (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I was the one who was initially attacked and discredited here. My comments were a natural response to the treatment I got in your comment above. I do acknowledge your advice though. – Aca (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start from the end. AI allegations

1. "According to academic analysis, anti-government protesters strategically reclaimed the term, turning it "into a tool of ridicule against fabricated state narratives and those participating in state-orchestrated pro-government rallies.", this is direct citation from OSTBLOG, article "Serbia's Protests as a Cultural Explosion",https://ostblog.hypotheses.org/7642, original text "In a clever reversal, genuine student protesters reclaimed the term, turning it into a tool of ridicule against fabricated state narratives and those participating in state-orchestrated pro-government rallies."

2. "What began as an online joke quickly transformed into a significant cultural and political symbol.", Source: Magazine Vreme, subsection about culture. https://vreme.com/vreme/caci-sinonim-za-sramotu-i-bescasce/, original title in Serbian: "Ćaci, sinonim za sramotu i beščašće", translation of title: "Ćaci, a synonym for shame and dishonor"

3. "The grammatical error became the immediate focus of public attention, overshadowing the intended message.", Source https://autonomija.info/nepismeni-autor-grafita-porucio-ucenicima-u-jovinoj-gimnaziji-caci-u-skolu/, original title of article ""Nepismeni autor grafita poručio učenicima u Jovinoj gimnaziji: 'Ćaci u školu'"", translation: "Illiterate author of graffiti tells students at Jova's Gymnasium: 'Ćaci u školu". Explanation: This headline and text clearly shows how the focus switched to the author's bad writing, not the message itself.

4. "Puns such as "Prelazak Đ u Ć – lojalizacija" ("The shift from Đ to Ć – loyalization") circulated widely, playfully linking the spelling error to political loyalty.", this is practicaly direct citation, with explanation, for game of word lojalizacija -> lojalty, original in Serbian "Prelazak Đ u Ć – lojalizacija", translation "The shift from Đ to Ć – loyalization"

Sources: City Magazine https://citymagazine.danas.rs/scena/drustvene-mreze/prelazak-dj-u-c-lojalizacija-caci-u-skolu-grafit-ispred-jovine-gimnazije-najveci-hit-na-mrezama/ and N1 Info https://n1info.rs/vesti/trazimo-cacija-da-ga-posaljemo-u-skolu-kako-je-nepismeni-grafit-protiv-strajka-postao-hit-na-mrezama-foto/

5. "The term's journey from a simple misspelling to a complex political metaphor has been cited by analysts as an example of protest culture's power to reclaim and repurpose symbols in contemporary Serbia."

Source for this is:OSTBLOG, article "Serbia's Protests as a Cultural Explosion",https://ostblog.hypotheses.org/7642

Original citation:

- "The Ćaci phenomenon began as an accidental misspelling of đaci (pupils) in graffiti that read Ćaci u školu (Ćaci to school). Initially mocked as an example of poor Cyrillic literacy (the correct Đ, Ђ, was mixed up in a graffiti with Ć, Ћ), it soon evolved into a meme and later into a satirical critique of pro-government “students” who were suspected of being paid to stage counter-protests..."

- "In a clever reversal, genuine student protesters reclaimed the term, turning it into a tool of ridicule against fabricated state narratives and those participating in state-orchestrated pro-government rallies."

- "Ćacilend further emerges as a fictional metaphor for Serbia under President Aleksandar Vučić—an absurd and repressive political landscape. The term further critiques the government’s attempts to present an illusion of stability and prosperity while suppressing dissent. It captures the surreal gap between official discourse and lived reality, making it one of the most potent symbols of the movement." Mmns21 (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WRT:

In this polarizing environment, having a separate article for this graffiti (despite the fact that similar articles about graffiti do not exist for other previous protests in Serbia) can be considered biased. In that sense, the very existence of this article is seen as POV forking.

The English Wikipedia does not operate in this sort of a 'polarizing environment' that seems to be local to Serbia. The average English reader can most definitely not be assumed to be aware of any such thing, let alone be affected by it. This article seems to help describe the said polarizing environment, so attempts to completely remove it just look like censorship. --Joy (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can merging articles, ie., moving contents from one page to another (to a more appropriate place), look like censorship? Aca has mentioned in his initial vote comment that "This topic should be covered within the existing main article." and that the information should be relayed there. That does not constitute as censorship. Nickpunk (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In fact, this is pretty much cross-wiki spam, which was unsuccessfully attempted on both sr.wiki and hr.wiki. 1 + 2 If not outright deleted, then simply redirect this article to something else instead. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ćaciland Protest Camp. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@نوفاك اتشمان I made the article Ćaci u školu on the Serbian and English wikipedia. I wanted to make it in German as well, because the largest number of tourists who visit that place come on ships that cruise the Danube, and the largest number of tourists are Germans. I just didn't have time. If I write an article in German, will I break any rules? The intention was to enrich knowledge and expand the pool of articles. The intention was neither promotion, nor any kind of marketing, nor SEO. I have no use for those articles. The article does not contain advertising material, biased information or inappropriate links. The added sources in the articles are reliable.

As for the article about the Ćaciland protest camp, I made it on several wikis. I will tell you the reason, so if it is wrong, I apologize. When I noticed censorship and violation of rules on the Serbian Wikipedia, I created an article on that topic in several languages (before the article I wrote was deleted). Before creating it, I tried to determine if this was allowed and found information that Wikipedia has an anti-censorship policy, that there is openness to contributions in foreign languages, and that special Wikipedias are independent. Even in the discussion about the reasons for the deletion of the original article on the Serbian Wikipedia (talk page), it was specifically stated that the article was also written in the Croatian language, as if that was something inadmissible. To that I replied that if the article exists in several languages, that in my opinion is an advantage and there were no further comments on that issue. I found making articles in different languages very interesting and challenging.

I devoted more time to some articles in other languages and some are very similar to the original Serbian version, I also tried to find sources in the language of that wikipedia according to my capabilities. For example, the Croatian version of the article was adapted from several sources in the Croatian language. The article has been deleted. I also created the Macedonian version and in it I mentioned the cooperation of students in Serbia and Macedonia. The first are protesting because of the tragedy at the railway station and the second because of the catastrophic fire in the discotheque in Kocani, since I tried to make the articles adapted, I added the information (there was an article about it in the Macedonian language) that Macedonian students came to visit Serbian students to familiarize themselves with the method and technique of protest. It bothered someone and the article was deleted, if I wanted to generalize I would write "Balkan Wikipedias". I had no will to continue even though the article was neat. I belong to the generation that, in addition to their mother tongue, learned very briefly Macedonian, Slovenian and the difference between Serbian-Croatian and Croatian-Serbian in primary school. Just a small digression, learning these languages was useful because through school I was subscribed to "Matematičko fizički list" (Mathematical and Physical Journal) published in Zagreb. It is also possible that the translation was not good, and at least there are many Macedonians in Novi Sad and I could have asked one of my friends to correct the translation, but I had the impression that it was not a problem. In the beginning, I made four articles, and later, in addition to the English one, there are 8 in total. The region where I live has many nationalities, that's the reason why I made the article in Hungarian and Slovak. I am particularly pleased because it was very interesting for me to create an article in Esperanto and Chinese. I liked Esperanto, so I expanded the activity by creating an article about a local association of Esperantists (I hope there will be no accusations of cross wiki spam). Again, it's long and I still have the impression that I should defend what I did. Mmns21 (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is refering to this other editor's work as "spam" not a violation of WP:AGF? --Joy (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Because it's questionable content not confined to a single wikiproject, authored by the same person and apparently machine-translated via Google Translate or via some sort of AI. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're yet to hear what exactly is questionable about the content. We have a variety of assertions of impropriety, but they all seem rather contrived so far. --Joy (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would kindly ask you, as well, not to jump into conclusions regarding my intent, please refer to the WP:AGF policy you mentioned. While the graffiti and the saying that arose from the protests are relevant to cover, it should be explained within the main article, because they were made popular through those protests, which is somewhat related/analogous with WP:SINGLEEVENT. The protests have also gave rise to related sayings such as "Pumpaj" (Pump it). Creating separate articles for those phenomena makes no sense, because they all arose in close connection with the protests themselves and under the same circumstances. The length of the protests article should be addressed by cleaning it up of unnecessary and unreliable information. It is currently full of information in the style of a newspaper report instead of an encyclopedia article, overloaded with information from low to extremely low credibility sources (including Facebook pages) and that the article needs to be reviewed and cleaned up. Therefore it would be best to maintain a unified article, which explains the context and then covers the symbols and slogans of the protests, as is the case elsewhere. Nickpunk (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you describe seem to be matters of cleanup, not deletion. Perhaps if some work was actually done to address any of these finer points, instead of harping on deleting 'spam', it would be easier for us others to continue to assume good faith. --Joy (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the reason to fix an article where the information can be better conveyed in the main protests article. The bottom line is that a separate page is not needed to convey this info. Nickpunk (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think people here (both keep and delete voters) might be being a bit too quick to get angry over what at the end of the day is a very minor issue. Stockhausenfan (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Family Red Crescent Medical College Hospital

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

Article appears promotional in tone and the refs rely on passing mentions in routine news coverage. Cleanup alone is unlikely to address the underlying issues of tone and notability. A WP:BEFORE check by me gives sufficient confidence to nominate this article. Chronos.Zx (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Bangladesh. Chronos.Zx (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhede (disambiguation)

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a straightforward case of WP:TWODABS. There are only 2 pages with the title "Rhede" and the primary topic has a hatnote to the other one. There is no reason to except this page from the guideline that this page is not needed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per twodabs. If anyone can find more of it then at that time I will reconsider my opinion. Fade258 (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've restored a marginal football club (not sure of its notability but it was Oberliga Niederrhein champion in 1983/84 and the German Wikipedia has a fairly detailed article). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom, previous discussion ignored policy, and adding an extra redlink to force a reason to keep a page seems unhelpful. Ivey (talk - contribs) 17:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many notable Rhedes in the corresponding German disambiguation page at de:Rhede (Begriffsklärung). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Youth Soccer Olympic Development Program

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

Cleanup of series of articles created by now blocked SPA that has been creating multiude of articles on youth soccer in a local area that do not pass GNG RedPatch (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Illinois Soccer League

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable youth league which has been deleted before. Created by now blocked SPA, creating a multitude of articles regarding subjects in youth soccer in Chicago area that fail GNG RedPatch (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free Parking

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

With a due diligence search, I have found no reliable sources showing significant coverage of this topic. Also, if this topic were a person, an animal, an organization, web content, or an event, (which it's not any of those), it would've met speedy deletion criterion A7. 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: There is a possibility that there might be some coverage in (board) gaming magazines from the 1980s when the game first came out but I don't know what they would be or where to find them. Here is a review from a gaming blog, I'm not sure if this counts for notability. There is already a mention of it at Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs so redirect there is appropriate. Moritoriko (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move, redirect, & disambiguate. Free parking currently redirects to Parking#Economics with a hatnote mentioning Free Parking. This is good; "parking that is free" is clearly the PTOPIC since the game is not notable. This page should do something similar, with care to preserve page history and existing links/redirects. My preference would be:

Move Free Parking to Free Parking (game).
Redirect Free Parking (game) to Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs per Moritoriko.
Redirect Free Parking to Parking#Economics, with a hatnote pointing to Free Parking (game).

Messy process, but sensible result. Anerdw (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs. I looked at the issues of Games magazine from 1988 and 1989 on the Internet Archive, and it wasn't mentioned once as far as I could tell. No reviews, no listing among the year's best games, not even an advertisement. Maybe there are reliable sources out there, but they will have to be found before this article can be kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to let you all know that the mention of Free Parking in Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs cites About.com (which we all know today as Dotdash Meredith). According to Wikipedia:RSPS, there is no consensus about Dotdash's reliability, so it should only be used situationally. I don't know about the reliability of the source in the context of Monopoly spin-off games. 1isall (talk/contribs) 12:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the section the subsection is in (Monopoly (game)#Related games) currently has this tag:

1isall (talk/contribs) 12:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I checked the Internet Archive which was difficult due to many false positive regarding the name. I do not know if they would help with notability at all, but I found these:

The false positives from the name definitely made it a challenge, so there is probably more out there. Adding the name of the designer Charles Phillips or the slogan "Feed the Meter" helped weed out the false positives a little bit. BOZ (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources are substantially all the same thing. They are the first edition, the second edition, and a French translation of the same book: Philip Orbanes' The Monopoly Companion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ping me if this is improved, but for now the article is poor (unreferenced OR), and sources discussed here are weak. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have rewritten the article and added two sources, both websites that explain and review board games. Both seem to be editorially independent and are not a shill to sell the games they review. For that reason, I would suggest that the game seems to be notable. Guinness323 (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that you added are Geeky Hobbies and Fun Board Games. The reliability of both of them is unclear, so I will go over to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask about them there. 1isall (talk/contribs) 13:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Guinness323, also with my sources found above in case they are useful somehow. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Sources seem reliable in context (are we really thinking they aren't reliable in their coverage of games?) but aren't great as noted. GNG is met. Editorially I think this might be better as a merge, but AfD is generally for notability arguments and this seems over the bar--take it to the talk page if you want a merge or redirect here. Hobit (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know AFD's could get relisted, too. 1isall (talk/contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dogelon Mars

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

Not notable cryptocurrency. No significant coverage of this cryptocurrency since its inception in 2021. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this topic is important/noteworthy to engage in the cryptocurrency's discussion/conversation on the use cases of memecoins, as directly mentioned and discussed by Vitalik Buterin.

He has highlighted how memecoins—despite frequently being dismissed as fleeting hype—can be transformed into powerful tools for philanthropy, using Dogelon Mars ($ELON) as a prime example. In his March 29, 2024 essay “What else could memecoins be?”, he recounts receiving half the supply of $ELON, which he promptly donated to the Methuselah Foundation, turning a playful token into a meaningful charity coin. This gesture not only showcased a creative way to channel memecoin enthusiasm into funding public goods, but also highlighted a broader vision: combining the fun and decentralized nature of memecoins with dedicated charitable mechanisms. Buterin suggests that while this approach has promise, a more impactful direction could involve integrating memecoin incentives within genuinely engaging blockchain games—potentially delivering both entertainment and economic upside for lower-income participants, alongside sustained support for worthy causes.

https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2024/03/29/memecoins.html Anh H. H. Trần (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Highly likely this is an LLM-generated article. MidnightMayhem 18:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Youth Soccer Association

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Illinois Youth Soccer Association

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

Basically same situation as Amundson Girls Soccer, Illinois ODP, Lane Tech Girls Soccer. Non-GNG articles created by a SPA that has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. 95% of the references link are from the organization's own website which is WP:PRIMARY not showing GNG RedPatch (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:57, 29 June 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 June 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Iran–Israel war

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

This article is essentially a duplicate of content that already exists at Iran-Israel war and on the other articles related to this conflict, but in a lower quality and with some degree of WP:TRIVIA. Perhaps at some point a more standard WP:TIMELINE consisting in bulleted lists or tables can be drafted, but this requires having the consensus to delete this current article first. JBchrch talk 12:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iran, and Israel. JBchrch talk 12:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dogfree

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

Too many issues in the article between WP:OR, overreliance of self-diagnosis trends and unreliable Internet sources, misidentification of causes with history, and missing fundamental information such as where or how the term came to be. Draftifying needed even if not deleted. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 12:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: There can probably be a short article about subreddit r/dogfree based on the Slate, Atlantic, and MEL sources, but this article just lumps together a bunch of random criticisms of dog ownership. It uses a lot of primary and unreliable sources. Not opposed to draftifying if that helps someone write a new article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to draftify since there appears to be some potentially useful content in this article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: seems ok, there appears to be something there, but this version of the article isn't ready for prime time yet. Oaktree b (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CPL Girls Soccer Championship Final

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

Basically same situation as Amundson Girls Soccer, Illinois ODP, Lane Tech Girls Soccer. Non-GNG articles created by a SPA that has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. RedPatch (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chicago Public High School League or delete, either is fine. Giant Snowman 11:36, 29 June 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 June 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Tree (1993 film)

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

No refs on the page since 2019, nothing found to count towards the notability criteria JMWt (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Todd Field#Filmmaker – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khong Lanmi

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

Non-notable infantry, does not need a separate article. Can be best described at Lanmi (Meitei culture). Wareon (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, and Manipur. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article already presents a substantial amount of in-depth information that supports its notability. If the nominator believes it does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, I would appreciate more specific reasoning grounded in those policies. Simply suggesting it be merged into a broader topic isn't sufficient if the subject is independently notable and the content supports a stand-alone article. Haoreima (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100 greatest

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

This is not a valid disambiguation page, and it inhibits Search. It is a list of WP:Partial title matches and other entries. If deleted, also move 100 Greatest (TV series) to the base name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abrar Mir

AfDs for this article:

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

Coverage is mostly about the company and the individual lacks significant independent sources. Fails to meet WP:NBLP. - The9Man ^Talk 09:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 09:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Health and fitness, Singapore, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transform Drug Policy Foundation

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

No independent refs on the page, all from the website of the topic. Not much else found. There's a news article like 1 not seeing much that could be described as substantial. JMWt (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario (Austrian TV series)

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing on de.wiki either. Interested to see if anyone else can offer sources that meet the notability standards for inclusion JMWt (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Austria. JMWt (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Arab Airlines Flight 501

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. I tried searching beyond 2012, and the only thing I managed to find other than forums was a short passing mention in a list of A320 accidents. [19] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Syria. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pakhral

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

No indication of notability whatsoever and reads more like a dictionary entry. Plus, googling the title just leads me to a village in Pakistan of the same name, with nothing on this topic. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 08:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There used to be much more content, but it was removed as completely unsourced. What's left is definitely insufficient to meet any inclusion standard for Wikipedia, but I offer no opinion as to whether this is insurmountable. (My delsorting here will be based on the prior content as much as the remaining stub.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Islam, Pakistan, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11Q18 New Jerusalem

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

Appears to be a single sentence stub for a fragment of New Jerusalem Dead Sea Scroll. Not seeing a good reason why this needs to be a page, notability appears to lie with the scroll (which has a much more extensive WP page). Not sure if there is anything to merge and a redirect is possibly debatable as may or may not be an unlikely search term on en.wp JMWt (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Judaism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Mason

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. But sources cited Allkpop are unreliable, it would eventually fail WP:BLPGOSSIP. Absolutiva 08:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, South Korea, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FarSight Studios

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sourcing is very weak, the only slightly substantive source on them I could find is this, but not nearly enough. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Wilson

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

While I have no doubt in the reliability of references provided in the article, this subject does not look notable to me for several reasons. She has only been in office since January, with there being little coverage of her life and career, particularly because there does not seem to be significant coverage of that in reliable sources (as it can be seen, the references only briefly pass over what she has actually done in her life and instead concentrate on her political beliefs). As far as I'm aware, an official is not presumed to be notable only based on their political beliefs (most of this article is actually related to that instead of her short career). This then might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, where a politician could become notable in the future for their career accomplishments, and not instead of their political views. To close this off, there is coverage of this person in reliable sources independent of the subject but is this coverage "significant"? We could write a ton more articles like this where there's news coverage of someone's political beliefs, but little to none about what they have accomplished. I should also note that while the creator of this article has expanded several major articles to B-status which is sure appreciated, they were previously banned from creating articles in the mainspace and instead had to use the AfC system. This is one of the articles created since the ban expired in April. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and United States of America. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes that is significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how so? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SIGCOV, I think you've confused significant coverage with coverage of what you think is significant... Your argument doesn't make any sense otherwise. Significant coverage of political beliefs counts just as much towards notability as significant coverage of political accomplishments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than WP:TOOSOON, I would argue independently of that, she is not notable. Most of the sources were published at the same time so there is no demonstration of sustained coverage. The citations from the end of May are redundant. existence ≠ notability. There is a lot of masking a lack of notability. The article lists every job she's ever held. A vague position at Gettr for an unlisted amount of time is not encyclopedic. The sourcing is also misapplied. For example, the statement that she was sworn in on May 27th does not appear in the Forward despite the citation. Again, adding references to mask a lack of notability.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kingsley, and some of her commentary, have received significant coverage from major sources in the short time she had been in the public eye. This coverage is only likely to grow, although I believe she is notable now. As a side note, the article is pretty well-written too. CarlStrokes (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess no one reviewed the article talk page or you would have seen, and mentioned here, that this article is currently being reviewed for GA status (see Talk:Kingsley Wilson/GA1). This seems relevant to discussing whether or not it should be Kept or Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable and becoming more so by the day. On top pf that, there's the good article review Liz points out. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what? There being a GAN review does not meant that the individual is notable. We have deleted many GAs and FAs in the past, this therefore won't be anything new. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Based on what" you ask???

Wilson has been in the news nonstop lately. I did a quick Google News search and gave up looking at news results by the 20th page. Of course some of those may be passing mentions or low quality but clearly this person is now one of the most prominent people in the States.

Wilson is the Pentagon's spokesperson and the Pentagon is dropping huge bombs. That gets attention. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it does not mean that every single mention of her name needs to be in the article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as the GA reviewer, I would prefer if you disregard the GAN when evaluating the notability of this subject (if that is within policy). No opinion on deletion. GoldRomean (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ms. Wilson holds a position of high importance as a spokesperson for the Pentagon. Her plainly stated views carry weight based upon people's respect for statements made by persons with the authority and responsibility to articulate policies of our government. Moreover, her prior statements may be helpful in evaluating whether a given statement she may make in the future is affected by bias. Mediator MFIII (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC) — Mediator MFIII (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Otto Rottman

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

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT. The only sources here are in order (1): a database and (2): doesn't mention the subject. Let'srun (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Romania. Let'srun (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Romania at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been able to find an interesting story of where he's from and how he got his start in athletics, here, but that's all (so far). Since the info leads into how he got to the Olympics, perhaps it could be incorporated at the Romania at the 1928 Summer Olympics article too. Kingsif (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, is there more support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appleby Court

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

Notability not demonstrated. Google search returns only estate agent listings of apartments in the building. The two sources only describe it in passing (where the first link can be found on The Internet Archive}. Tæppa (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is on the London Borough of Ealing's heritage list who give it a detailed description. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tæppa (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Philafrenzy. Althogh it's actually Enfield, not Ealing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure Guards

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, only 1 review. Nothing supporting notability in the other language wikis. Nothing else found in a BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 01:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, South Africa, and Germany. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, not notable enough 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:78AB:A3D3:59C3:AFC9 (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found an additional 82 word review in an Australian newspaper[20] Jahaza (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is some coverage in Italian (one of the leads is Italian). Arguably the "best" is this. There are several reviews by freelance/amateur critics, too. I could not find anything from major sources, but I didn't dig too deep either. Ostalgia (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as well as the Filmdienst review cited in the article there is this other archived German review here. I'm not familiar with the site so it's a weak keep, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Definetively can find more sources. I'm not familiar at all with this. Earth605 (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuckols (surname)

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

This article is sourced mostly to an unreliable source, a self-published family history of a specific American family with this surname from which the author is descended (The Roses: The Nuckolls Family, the Lyman Family, and One Hundred Fifty Immigrants Who Helped Shape America, C. Nuckols). There is a single more reliable source giving arguable sigcov not to the surname, but to (I think) a different sub-branch of the family from the book. But again this is a marginal source for establishing notability, the local history website of Henrico County Historical Association. Having looked online, I find the usual collection of unreliable genealogy sites mentioning the surname's supposed history but nothing else. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the claim "commonly found throughout Scandinavia " is certainly not true; zero hits in the Norwegian phonebook. Geschichte (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's unheard of in Scotland, England and Wales too. It seems likely to me to be a variant spelling of Nicholls originating in Virginia, but that is also OR.--Boynamedsue (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not very intimate with Wikipedia, so I apologize if this is kind of a stupid question, but would this source be any more reliable over The Roses? https://openlibrary.org/books/OL6579929M/Pioneer_settlers_of_Grayson_County_Virginia

It seems to have the same information sourced from The Roses that's listed on the Wikipedia article. I didn't come across it until after I had already made edits to the page using The Roses as a source. It had warned me that iUniverse was unreliable, though I still went ahead and published my edits since the only source before that was the Henrico County Historical Society. Also, I've deduced from genealogical websites that the various Nuckols surnames originate with a common ancestor, though as already mentioned here I suppose those kinds of websites aren't considered reliable enough to use as a source. As for the claim about the surname's distribution, I also couldn't find anything relating to its status in England, Scotland, or Scandinavia, though out of uncertainty I just added a "citation needed". I do know that it's quite common in some parts of Virginia, but I wasn't sure how to source this exactly. Besides Nuckols road which is already listed, there's also a Nuckols Farm which is apparently preserved by Henrico county. https://henrico.gov/locations/nuckols/

Again though, I'm not too intimate with Wikipedia, so I don't know if these things establish sufficient notability. NoahsRebels (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having had a week of not-so-much discussion, I just don't see why it would be an encyclopedic topic. Geschichte (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article as it currently stands is plagued with issues, and I believe it needs a complete rewrite, but I've made a couple of these surname articles, and thought I would weigh in on what is more standard form. A kind of informal, and admittedly very imperfect, standard that is used for determining if a surname warrants its own article, outside of WP:GNG, is if multiple notable people who already have English Wikipedia articles have the name, although when there are only two cases it can go either way. Generally, unless the name comes from nobility or belongs to a particularly prominent family, there is no story of its history, and just a couples sentences (if any) about its etymologic origins, and then a list of notable people with the surname. I don't have policy statements to back this up, its just what I've seen as standard while editing hundreds of these articles.

As for this surname in particular, it does have an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of American Family Names (2 ed.), which also lists Nuckolls as a variant of Nuckols, so they could share a page as different spellings of the same surname (the page would usually be named the more common spelling with the other as a redirect to it).

TLDR: There are more sources, but only a sentence or two of the current article is worth keeping. - Ike Lek (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGENEALOGY Geschichte (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Cities comics artists

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

This seems like WP:OR. The concept of "Twin Cities comics artists" does not appear to exist on Wikipedia. I've deroted the two refs that supposedly talk abou this and the first done does not seem to mention this term, or Twin Cities ([21], the other one is a news piece about Minnessota ([22]). The following few sentences have no reference and seem even more ORish. Most of the people mentioned in the list here don't have a reference. Even if they are indeed active in that area, this is a pretty niche and trivual grouping, like comic artists in the New York City or Californa or such would be. This seems to fail WP:GNG, WP:NLIST and WP:OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Comics and animation, and Minnesota. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It seems like this categorization was made up by the page's creator, and the article reads like a promotional essay. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename would make more sense to me. Not sure what the name should be. Maybe Twin Cities nerd scene or Twin Cities geek scene.

Dflovett (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not opposed to draftify as ATD as article topic has potential though needs much polishing, as article has multiple issues aside from nom s points, found at least a couple of deadlinks, and checking deeper a lot of the citations seems primary sources. Lorraine Crane (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erie County Democratic Committee

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

I've never seen a Wikipedia page for a county party before, and this specific one doesn't seem especially notable. All cited sources are political/election reporting that just happen to mention the county party. I don't really see anything on this page that would make the Erie County Democratic Committee more notable than any other local party affiliate in one of the 3,244 counties in the US. The section on Joseph F. Crangle and James D. Griffin is interesting, I suppose, but they both have their own pages where that information can be parked. This page could possibly be redirected to Erie County, New York or New York State Democratic Party. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing sources explicitly about the committee, it's activities, and the infighting going on in its history (especially so in the section on the most recent history which was removed, despite it being properly sourced and having a large amount of references even more explicitly about the conflicts going on within the committee). The sources aren't just about actual political races in elections, but often articles about political appointments in the committee and the conflicts therein. Which seems to me to make the committee itself notable and information about its history is better situated here than spread across multiple other articles involving each of the several notable people who have been a part of its history. Also, your first statement is very wrong. There are a number of county party articles, the most prominent of which is Brooklyn Democratic Party. Silver seren^C 15:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, you have everything from very recent articles on political controversies with the committee to much older pieces from 1868 about the committee. So there's a ton of history and sources to pull from. I honestly think the article currently is underbaked, there's a lot more, especially in book sources and specialized newspaper databases like Newspapers.com that can be pulled from to make this history even more in-depth and comprehensive. Silver seren^C 15:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's a long political history of Erie County that was/is involved in US Federal politics, the assassination of McKinley in particular. I'm not sure the Democratic portion of the Erie County party is particularly notable... I can really only find rather routine mentions of candidates or politicians. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Kings County Democratic County Committee, Kings County Republican Party, New York County Democratic Committee, Queens County Republican Party, and Westchester County Democratic Committee are all county parties within New York State - so stating there's not a precedent is incorrect. TheNewMinistry (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is the creator of the article. And that's a bit of a different situation given that those are the parties in New York City, the largest city in the country. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo is the second-largest city in New York State, and Erie County has roughly the same population as Westchester County - which is not part of New York City proper. TheNewMinistry (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify While it's possible for local party organizations to be notable, the sources here are generally news pieces about people involved or routine local activities rather than the committee more broadly. I think a better focus on significant aspects of its history with dedicated sources that don't make it feel like a refbomb would be helpful, but when it's mainly just a listing of who served as chairmen, I don't see justification for an article here. Erie County, New York#County government and politics and Politics and government of Buffalo, New York are also excellent places for discussion about how they've been involved with politics that could use some of this type of info. Reywas92^Talk 21:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except when addressing an article in an AfD, you're meant to discuss the topic and its notability as a whole. Not the current state of the article. You've acknowledged here the existence of sources on the general history of the committee. Furthermore, with your last sentence, shouldn't you be voting for Merge instead for this subject? Silverseren^C 21:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, it could be read as selective merge, but honestly, I don't believe much of the content here, which, again, is mainly just listings of who was chairman when, should be included in that. If there is more in-depth coverage about what the committee actually did, then those should be added to those articles. I don't see notability as a whole with these sources.
  I thought the line "The committee became fractured between Griffin's conservative South Buffalo loyalists, and the liberal base" was interesting, but the source only says "The anti-Griffin opposition has splintered..." without any discussion of the county committee. Reading through more of them, I see very little independent substance about the organization rather than just who was chair. — Reywas92^Talk 22:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree that needs a better source. If you're interested in the topic of how South Buffalo politics branched off from the rest of the city, this is an excellent article from 2002 - “Dave Franczyk, Racism and a Divided Council”:
  
  This is the legacy that former mayor Jimmy Griffin gave to Buffalo. Election after election saw Griffin running against black candidates. The subtle message to white voters, including those who did not particularly like Griffin, was that Jimmy Griffin was their last line of defense against blacks, who were poised to take over the city (as if politics was a sort of black vs. white football game). This was obvious from start in 1978, when Arthur Eve beat Jimmy Griffin in the Democratic Primary for Mayor. Griffin came back in November on the Conservative line in a racially driven campaign whose aftershocks we still feel today. Stop signs throughout South Buffalo and white sections of the East Side were stenciled into “Stop Eve” signs. Griffin forces made a monumental effort to churn out the votes in these same areas. The message was clear. Voters weren’t coming out to support Griffin. They were coming out to vote against the black man. All of Griffin’s subsequent elections saw him matched up in similar Democratic primary battles. TheNewMinistry (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Erie County Democratic Committee is not mentioned anywhere in this paragraph. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a 14-year member of the equivalent committee in Albany County, I shouldn't !vote. However, I think that larger and dominant county committees and political machines are usually more notable than state committees. There appears in any case to be significant coverage, but that's the community's decision. Bearian (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right - and there's often been times when county chairs have simultaneously held the New York State committee chair, giving their counties a specific edge over the rest of the state in power. Joseph F. Crangle was simultaneously both state chair and the chairman of Erie County's Democratic Committee from 1971 to 1974. More recently, Byron Brown served as state chair from 2016 to 2019 while he was mayor of Buffalo. TheNewMinistry (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gacha Thana

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

Unclear how this passes WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. Govvy (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If i did not make it pass WP:GNG, try to improve it yourself, i dont have all time in the world
This is not just a building, hell no, metropolitan thanas have administrative value while rural thanas are not administrative units anymore, metropolitan thanas are relavant and not just buildings, they are then both police stations and also administrative units in which wards and unions may be under the jurisdiction of such thanas.

BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics and Banglapedia for more information BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improve it myself? I don't live there or know the area, I am going by GNG guidelines, I am including both the police force and the buildings per two different policies that I've posted above. You've also just said you created an article that doesn't pass GNG? :/ Govvy (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said "if" alright, i didnt say it didnt pass, reading properly is good alright, and plus your response was a bit careless by the way and i live in Bangladesh and i read such government websites on administration, plus you said on the ANI topic about workload, If the real issue is lack of sourcing, then deletion or escalation to ANI doesn’t seem like the right first step. A tag, a talk page message, or a cleanup request would’ve worked just as well — that’s what collaboration is for.

And regarding “creating workload”: I get it. Cleanup takes effort. But so does mass-nominating articles, launching ANI threads, and blasting other contributors' phones with notifications. Let’s be real — we all create some workload. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing seems trivial, I don't see notability. Appears just another routine police station. I don't see sourcing we can use either. Oaktree b (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, dismissing it as 'just another routine police station' ignores how thanas function in urban Bangladesh — as both law enforcement bases and geographic identifiers. Gacha Thana, like others, is the basis for administrative demarcation, identity, and public service in Gazipur. The current sourcing isn't fake or promotional — it's simply not developed yet. That doesn't make it trivial. It makes it unfinished, yet it was made on mainspace because administrative units are important, also more expansion can maybe occur on mainspace articles if a stub or issue is pointed out. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gazipur Metropolitan Police per WP:ATD-M where it is mentioned. As the article stands, it is not an article about a thana so much as a one-liner that mentions the local police station, and it is sourced to trivial mentions. Sam Sailor 17:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gazipur Metropolitan Police as suggested by Sam Sailor. Doesn't meet WP:NBUILDING or WP:GNG. No evidence has been presented here or in recent discussions about other thanas that they meet the intent of WP:NPLACE. Discussion continues at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) about the wording "legally recognized" and "place". Sentiment is strong, however, that if there isn't something substantial and encyclopedic to write about a topic, it should be no more than a list entry. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operations attributed to Israel in Iran

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

Non-notable article with very biased language such as: "Israel has rarely been held accountable for its destructive actions."

Nothing more than a list of incidents/operations.

Contains information from other articles such as Assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and mentions a 2007 explosion at Parchin while information is included on Parchin's article, so why do we need it here? And attribution to Israel to attacks or incidents in Iran is reported all the time by the Iranian government. Wouldn't it make more sense to have an article on actual Israeli operations in Iran in the wider Iran-Israel proxy conflict?

Was copied from the Farsi Wikipedia. Creator has a long history of copying articles from this Wikipedia and creating the English version. I suspect the Farsi Wikipedia of having NPOV issues with the articles related to Iran and Israel that this creator. Not to mention that this article is under the category of Zionist political violence which is not supported by information in this article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Middle East, Iran, and Israel. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a FORK — both POV and REDUNDANT — of Iran–Israel proxy conflict#Assassinations, cyberwarfare and sabotage. As nom mentioned, the tone is highly non-encyclopedic. More importantly, the relevant content is adequately covered in Iran–Israel proxy conflict.

Note that the AfDd list is considerably broader and includes, for example, a terrorism incident in Iran where Iranian authorities blamed Israel, Israel denied involvement, and ISIS claimed responsibility. Such cases do not belong in a table about Iran–Israel operations. Such an accusation can be mentioned in the body of the relevant article. gidonb (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in another Afd of a similar matter: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran-Israel non-political relations. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will take a look there as well. gidonb (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article is important because When something bad happens, Iran blames Israel Like: Kerman Bombings Farcazo (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote doesn't address the issues with the article nor explain any necessity. Any information like this can be just on the respective articles like the one linked for some reason externally, which is already mentioned on that article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a redundant fork. There are already enough articles covering the same subject. Azuredivay (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is Iran–Israel proxy conflict#Assassinations, cyberwarfare and sabotage, mentioned in the discussion, a suitable redirect target? Or are we better with outright deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Student Exchange

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

The overly promo tone of this doesn't help. I've tried Gbooks, Scholar and a News search, other than routine mentions (naming a president, xyz student participating), I can't find anything about this org. Sounds like a wonderful opportunity, but sourcing is sparse. The article only has primary sources at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- though I would agree with the Nom about the article needing some rewrite to be more neutral in tone, however the subject/concept of the article is potentially notable, though more as a feature implemented as a result of agreements /collaborations between universties and colleges. as can be seen with a few samples like 1 ,2 , 3 ,perhaps it can be made as a redirect as a feature/programme under existing notable US colleges and universities.Lorraine Crane (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No redirect target specified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian Progressive Nationalist Party

AfDs for this article:

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

Restarting a deletion discussion for this article, will aim to detail in a reply Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Organizations, Politics, and Iraq. Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I originally nominated this article for deletion back in March of this year. Following a larger search for sources, I only found five worth noting:

Constitution of the party
Iraq Country Assessment by the UK, on page 66
Leftist Parties of Iraq (now dead website), mentions year of establishment, founder, and ideology
Europa World Year, mentions opposition to Kurdish region
Journal article by Vahram Petrosian, on page 25

Even within these sources, the subject is only given small mentions that are one or a few sentences in length. A commenter on the previous AfD mentioned that there would've been print media discussions of the party, though I couldn't find any such sources archived (even by searching the name of the party in Arabic, no results come up). Having not found more than these five sources with more or similar discussion, it's safe to assume that the articles fails Wikipedia:SIGCOV beyond trivial mentions and, although noting that reliable sources exist mentioning the party, that WP:ORGSIG applies as other similar parties exist that advocate for the same things. I argue for deletion based on these merits. Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was the party of Saddam Hussein, who was executed in 2006. Nothing found that indicates this party still exists. — Maile (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability is not temporary. Just because it is no longer exists does not itself mean it isn't notable. Curbon7 (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This was the party of Saddam Hussein"? What? Geschichte (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this already passed a AfD very recently. Nothing has changed since, and my argument remains: "whilst contemporary internet coverage is very scarse, it is worth noting that it would have received media attention in print media in Iraq at the time (esp. as being propped up by the govt at the time). The stance on national question is also interesting, as contrast to other groups. Here is an English version of its program [23]." --Soman (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allblessed (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question to @Soman - I stated above that I couldn't find any print media discussions of the party anywhere online, much less archived. What exactly is your rationale for keeping the article if these sources can't be found, and the existing sources do not indicate sufficient notability? Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Coverage in Iraqi media, being propped up by the government" would also be very far from WP:Reliable sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case Lawrence

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional COI article moved from draftspace after being declined multiple times. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Law, Latter Day Saints, Hungary, California, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the high-quality sourcing is about his company, which already has its own page. Don't see why Lawrence deserves his own page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:NOTINHERITED. As an unsuccessful candidate, he's not notable for that reason. He's also not automatically notable because he's lead organizations or businesses. I don't see WP:SIGCOV, and he fails my person standards for lawyers (there is no consensus). Bearian (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would appreciate help to make this article more solid. I'm still learning. Case Lawrence is a very influential figure in Utah business and politics. I have not been paid to make edits on this article. I moved article to the mainspace because I didn't know it had to wait to be reviewed. I understand if it must be deleted. I would appreciate any advice on how to keep pages up. Madlaiscott (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, I think you've done a good job of keeping things focused on the subject. (And no, there is no rule that you need approval or a draft process to move to mainspace, but you should probably know that doing so against a review is likely to attract an AfD). My advice is to find the ten least significant facts/links in the article (especially those that are not particularly important and are about SkyZone/CircusTrix and not Lawrence) and remove them -- the article looks like someone is trying to make a minor business person seem important by bombarding the reader with lots of tiny assertions of notability instead of focusing on the 5 or 6 sources that actually confirm his notability. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I really appreciate it. I will attempt to make those changes you advised. Madlaiscott (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by WP:GNG for multiple independent sources covering him as an influential business figure (in addition to, and of course in part because of, his success in the trampoline world). There are headline stories about him in Deseret News, a significant news publisher, and Utah Business (which seems to be from the same company but independent editorials) and, also among less significant news sources, the Utah Valley University review and the BYU Marriott Business School review. The first Inc. story is largely about Lawrence's success in addition to the company's success as is the Sacramento Bee story (the LA Times story is about the company and doesn't mention Lawrence directly). Would not pass WP:NPOL or WP:PROF, but only one notability guideline needs to be passed and the amount of news about Lawrence himself is enough to pursuade me to !vote Keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lawrence has had many articles written about him both in Utah as well as Forbes and Inc.. He is a pioneer and leader of his industry. He is a notable figure in Utah for his entrepreneurship as well as political involvement in many facets. The citations and references are there, they just could use more organizing and help from more experienced editors. Driftsignal97 (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Driftsignal97 its important to disclose your WP:COI in this discussion, if you are going to vote here. Nayyn (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I thought the disclosure I have on my user page was sufficient. I was originally paid by media company, Fluid, who did work for Case Lawrence. I was the original creator of the Case Lawrence article. Driftsignal97 (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to CircusTrix per WP:NPOL and WP:NOTINHERITED. Nayyn (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per WP:GNG There are multiple headline articles about Lawrence. He has plenty of references to use. He is referenced in at least two other Wikipedia articles also. He has a lot more references than a lot of other pages... Compare this page to other notable business and political figures in Utah especially. Madlaiscott (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catch (brand)

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

Catch seems to be one of the brands of Dharampal Satyapal Group. This article openly contains promotional texts of it that are being presented as an encyclopedic entry, which goes against WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOTADVERT and WP:ADMASQ, ofcourse. Even if we suggest a merge with the company article as a WP:ATD option, it still doesn't make much sense to move promo text from one page to another. A couple of lines about it already exist in the history section. Charlie (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Charlie (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sacha Dragic

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

Unclear notability. Current sources appear routine and more focused on this person's company than him. I am not sure that he meets notability guidelines as a WP:BUSINESSPERSON. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, France, Romania, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. Sacha Dragic has received significant and sustained coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources that discuss him in-depth and independently of any Superbet promotional material.

For example:

– Sacha Dragic returns to the helm as co-CEO: https://igamingbusiness.com/people/sacha-dragic-superbet/

– Sacha Dragic enters the insurance market: https://www.profit.ro/stiri/confirmare-sacha-dragic-fondatorul-superbet-intra-pe-piata-asigurarilor-20952276

– Gaming Intelligence: Superbet founder Sacha Dragic returns as co-CEO: https://www.gamingintelligence.com/people/moves/201438-superbet-founder-sacha-dragic-to-return-as-co-ceo/

These are a few links that are cited in the current Wikipedia article; there are more sources online, but I started with the ones that are already present here and talk about Sacha Dragic as a well-known entrepreneur, not just as Superbet CEO. I believe the links I listed above are not trivial mentions; they demonstrate that he is a notable figure in both Romanian business and the international gaming sector.

Based on the standard outlined at WP:GNG, I recommend that we keep the article. Vaderthedarklab (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Past Sharks squads

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

Fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. We don't keep lists like this. Readers who may be interested in previous players can see historic players at List of Sharks (rugby union) players, transfer lists for URC and Super Rugby competitions and season pages. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Rugby union, Sportspeople and South Africa. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to merging this with the List of Sharks (rugby union) players, subject to resolution of the distinction of Currie Cup vs URC players, as if those players - who meet notability requirements - are excluded then List of Sharks (rugby union) players is incomplete. Whybeetoo (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would be dependent on the outcome of the discussion on the WikiProject. I'd be opposed to full squad boxes but if we can find information on Currie Cup players (which I found incredibly difficult in creating this list) then can be added in another section if consensus reached. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sho Nogami

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

Not meet WP:NBOX HumanRight 02:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. HumanRight 02:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this listed in sport of athletics? LibStar (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NBOX doesn't mean squat. Wayne Gretzky fails WP:NHOCKEY. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search didn't turn up the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, nor does the subject meet the relevant SNG. I admittedly don't read Japanese, so please let me know if significant supporting evidence is added. Papaursa (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tulu language channels

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

LLM-generated page written in a clearly unencyclopedic style. It's possible that this could be a worthy article topic, but given this article's state, it's best to blow it up and start over. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Karnataka, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:TNT. Topic could be notable, but there don't appear to be enough sources, and the use of an LLM to write this much of the page is unacceptable. MidnightMayhem 18:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Bordeaux

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not convinced this band meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND . Most of the sources are in Hebrew and offer only passing coverage. Chronos.Zx (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Music, and Israel. Chronos.Zx (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has coverage from Times of Israel, Israel's state-run media, The Jerusalem Post, The Haaretz, highly reliable and English-language media. Lobogamio (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator already acknowledged that is has coverage, namely passing coverage, so are you able to reply about the quality/nature of the coverage? Geschichte (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Other articles from Israeli bands Hamakor (band) prove that The Jerusalem Post is a highly reliable journalistic source Lobogamio (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Al-Qarara

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

Does not pass NEVENT, coverage is not sustained. Not even sure if this happened as described? Only sources are primary "war updates" that don't frame it this way or maps from dubious sources or news articles that don't mention this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Israel, and Palestine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous lexicon engine

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

Non-notable, borderline nonsense concept with no evidence of uptake beyond the author. All About Jazz takes user-generated pages ([24]), and the other cited source is self-published. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Cryptocurrency. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Delete, nothing anywhere close to reliable coverage exists. Elestrophe (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Possible A11 candidate; appears to be AI-generated Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Zero reliable sources. Likely AI-generated nonsense. MidnightMayhem 18:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irvins

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

The article only has one sentence and the product does not seem notable enough for its own page. Being mentioned in advertorial-style reliable sources should not be seen as enough for inclusion and likely does not meet WP:NCORP. Aleain (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Singapore. Aleain (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with OP. Has five references for two sentences. This article was created in September of 2024, and has had little done in that time. A Google search only lists sites that sell the product, there are no WP:RS I could find. Unfortunately, I think this article requires deletion for these reasons. 11WB (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Wikipedia:Too soon. Knox490 (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syria (region)

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

Merge with the article Levant, literally two articles about the exact same region, historical and cultural unit existing in two different articles. I see no reason for this. Yabroq (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Yabroq (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Without looking at the sources, I will say that if the region called Syria is treated as conceptually distinct from the region called the Levant, even if their supposed territories (I just mean maps, not political claims to land) are identical, then the articles ought to be kept separate. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The terms are distinct. Levant often includes Cyprus, Syria never has. Levant had a much wider and vaguer meaning in medieval terms, Syria was reasonably consistent since it was defined clearly by the Ancient Greeks. We could add other terms like Eastern Mediterranean and Outremer. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any reason for deletion or merging as there are sources which clearly discuss this as a separate region. I assumed when I saw this on the watch list that it would have been some newly created POVFORK but it's been around for 12 years now, so I don't understand this nomination. SportingFlyer T·C 08:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kohei Ueda

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

Previously deleted by prod. 17 professional appearances, fails in GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shogo Tsukada

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

Previously deleted by prod. 3 professional appearances, the rest are at a lower level. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, galaxies away from notability. Geschichte (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]