Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< August 25	August 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sandee Pyne

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

I couldn't find sufficient independent sources with significant coverage of the subject so as to meet WP:BIO. In addition, the first paragraph at least reads in a very WP:PROMO way. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maryland and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacking details. It says she's a "ICF-accredited Professional Certified Coach (PCC) and former CEO". What was she a CEO of? And what exactly was she coaching and to whom? — Maile (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No news coverage outside of the BBC article, a "Best of" list, which usually isn't notable. I don't see anything about this person, this is PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My concerns about poorly sourced BLPs have come true. Either someone has to fix this, or we must delete it. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails due to sourcing lacking in independence from the subject. Also fails on WP:SIGCOV grounds. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is poorly sourced, full of buzzwords and promotional content, and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Yerlo (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to L'Oréal#Brand portfolio. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

L'Oréal Professionnel

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only sources I could find are self-published. The only citation doesn't even include L'Oréal Professionnel!!! ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom - seems promotional. Not able to find WP:RS to improve the content - fails WP:N Asteramellus (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to L'Oréal#Brand portfolio and add a mention. Unable to find enough WP:SIGCOV but it does exist and is a plausible enough search term. मल्ल (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@मल्ल good idea! ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 15:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Women's Football Alliance. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Xplosion

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

Redirect to Women's Football Alliance as I am unable to find enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. All I really found was this mention in a story about a different team. JTtheOG (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Women's Football Alliance. i could not find anything either. Rainsage (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, American football, and Iowa. JTtheOG (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Women's Football Alliance as a better WP:ATD and I always prefer that over a straight deletion. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghassan El Khatib

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

As community consensus has shown, ambassadors are not inherently notable. The first source is a directory listing, the other 2 are dead. The 2 google news hits are small mentions. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While ambassadors may not be inherently notable, they are presumed to be notable under WP:NPOL. If you wish to contest this, either explain why it would not apply to ambassadors, or make an RfC to seek community consensus to have it changed. Most definitions of what a politician is would apply to ambassadors, who hold a national position. Additionally, the dead link indicates coverage. – Ike Lek (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is very clear, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humaira Hasan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Yahya Alkharejah. But you keep insisting there is inherent notability when no one agrees with you. Where is your consensus? LibStar (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My consensus is WP:NPOL, specifically this revision [1], which is a higher level of consensus than AfD. Bringing up previous AfDs is a very "other stuff doesn't exist" argument.

Also, I very clearly specified that I was not claiming inherent notability, so I would appreciate if you struck that. Ike Lek (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
inherent, presumed notability...same thing. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Very much not the same thing. Ike Lek (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfDs (especially recent ones) are highly relevant as they show community consensus. You even said consensus can change, yes it can, but not evidenced in recent AfDs. You even tried an unsuccessful deletion review to desperately salvage your viewpoint on inherent/presumed notability. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I advice you to read WP:CONLEVEL. If you believe there is consensus against the current wording of policy, then RfC is the way to address that. Ike Lek (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated here "If you want to debate notability standards, I advise you to bring it to a policy talk page where other editors who are interested in the subject matter can weigh in. Editors interested in developing policies and guidelines are unlikely to see an AFD discussion." LibStar (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referencing a policy. You are referencing one editor's statement. Ike Lek (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that supports my claim anyway. If you want to change policy, you should take it to RfC or the talk page. You are the one proposing a change and claiming that AfDs establish consensus for developing policies. I don't know why you would quote that, as it supports the notion that your previous AfDs do not impact consensus on policy. Ike Lek (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no presumed notability for ambassadors, no matter how hard you try to wpin it or use deletion reviews to overturn delete decisions determined through consensus. LibStar (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors do not have presumed notability and the subject fails GNG. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Note that ambassadors are not presumed to be notable under WP:NPOL - I question the attempt to sneak in a novel policy interpretation, and don't even understand the reasoning. Here is NPOL bit by bit:

Politicians and judges Ambassadors are neither politicians nor judges as such. Some are, many are not.

who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office Ambassadorship is not a political office.

or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Of course, they have not done ethis either.

This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. They are not elected to offices.

Major local political figures They are not local political figures.

who have received significant press coverage. Some have, many have not.

Geschichte (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get how you claim ambassadors don't hold a political office. Ambassadors are absolutely politicians by nature of holding a political office. Can you cite a definition of politician that would exclude ambassadors? Ike Lek (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Geschichte's analysis of ambassador notability, and am slightly confused as to why @Ike Lek is citing a specific revision of WP:NPOL from 2015 containing since-removed ambassador specific material to support their assertion of consensus, while also referencing current wording of policy when discussing WP:CONLEVEL. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 17:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am showing when consensus was achieved that ambassadors are not excluded from WP:NPOL, and then making a WP:CONLEVEL argument for past AfDs not being able to establish a consensus overruling a policy. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Geschichte's analysis of NPOL and a lack of sources for GNG. Politicians participate in policy-making processes which is not true for most diplomats and ambassadors. Moritoriko (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambassadors have no standing of presumed notability at NPOL. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, how can the consensus be any "clearer". Geschichte (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I fought hard against the development of the consensus that ambassadors are not notable. I lost. We must be consistent. Read the news, folks. This person lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I think more information about the upcoming movie should be told, do not remove the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KINAIKWC (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Shrek (franchise)#Shrek 5 (2027). Some keep arguments have not engaged substantively with the requirements for a film's notability prior to release, and as such receive lower weight. There remain legitimate arguments on either side about whether the coverage of the production is sufficient for notability, but the argument against a standalone article has more support at this time. Users interested on working on this in draftspace may make a copy from the history. Assuming production doesn't hit a snag recreation is inevitable, but I would encourage interested editors to write an article only when it has substantive new material. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek 5

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

WP:TOOSOON. To be released in summer 2027. Not ready for mainspace. All promotional, routine and announcements. Article should be moved to DRAFT or REDIRECT to Shrek_(franchise)#Shrek_5_(2027). RangersRus (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. RangersRus (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As it passed GNG by most of the sources talking about it and it is actually a confirmed film so WP:NFF does not apply here. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 01:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This meets WP:NFILM due to extensive coverage from reliable sources and production is actively progressing. Draftifying is not appropriate here. MidnightMayhem (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. In regards to WP:NFF, the film is clearly past pre-production. Production itself is also notable. jolielover♥talk 06:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source Analysis.

Source 1, announcement, Universal and DreamWorks Animation announcing that the storied franchise will return on July 1, 2026.
Source 2, 3 routine, Zendaya has joined the venerable animated film series as the daughter of Shrek.
Source 4 No coverage on Shrek 5.
Source 5 No coverage on Shrek 5.
Source 6 No coverage on Shrek 5.
Source 7 No coverage on Shrek 5
Source 8 Non-independent and no coverage on Shrek 5.
Source 9 Non- independent about maker giving hint of another Shrek movie. No coverage at all on Shrek 5.
Source 10, 11 Non-independent about NBCUniversal chief looking to revive Shrek. No coverage on Shrek 5.
Source 12 passing mention from producer about reviving Shrek 5.
Source 13 Non-independent on when the film will be released.
Source 14 Non-independent of veterans of DreamWorks Animation about who is writer for Shrek 5.
Source 15 Routine news on possibility of Shrek 5 slated for 2019 release. Article from 2016.
Source 16 Non-independent with some mention by writer about the film under development.
Source 17 Non-independent with mention by producer about rebooting Shrek. No coverage on Shrek 5.
Source 18 Non-independent with producer again talking about reviving Shrek but no coverage on Shrek 5.
Source 19 Non-independent with no coverage on Shrek 5 with reboots still non-existent, since Meledandri (producer) and company are still in the early stages of developing the revivals.
Source 20, 21, 22 Non-independent with actor commenting about possibility on another Shrek. No coverage on Shrek 5.
Source 23 routine if Shrek is reviving.
Source 24, 25 Non-independent about film in early development.
Source 26, 27 Non-independent with Eddie Murphy.
Source 28 Non-independent about release date and who will be joining the cast.
Source 29 Routine about release delay of film.
Source 30 Non-independent with actor Eddie Murphy confirming Shrek 5.
Source 31 to 36, all talk about concern about the Shrek announcement teaser with new look and design.
Source 37, routine about film release moved to Summer 2027 and says Shrek 5 will be directed by franchise veterans Conrad Vernon and Walt Dohrn. Filming not yet started it seems from this article.
Source 38, 39, 40 No coverage on Shrek 5.

Comment. Voters should have understanding of WP:NFILM guidelines and the coverages needed for the film to pass notability. Coverages should be from secondary independent reliable sources. From the above source analysis, it is very clear that the film does not pass notability as of yet. Maybe in the future when close to release date when multiple critical reviews are generated. RangersRus (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete - It is clear that some of the voters have misread the future film guideline, which is a poorly written guideline that has caused confusion for at least a decade. Films fall into three stages:
- 1. Films that are not yet in production, which are not notable.
- 2. Films that have entered or completed production, which are notable if production itself has been notable.
- 3. Films that have been released.

The guideline for the second stage, between production and release, is poorly written, but only provides that the film is notable if production has been notable. Significant coverage of the fact that the film is in the works is not sufficient. The coverage is mostly promotional and has aspects of crystal balling. This film, like most films between production and release, is not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Per source analysis, it's not at all clear that the production of the film has been notable, and a rather astonishing number of the sources are entirely speculative. @Robert McClenon's analysis is spot on, and per nom this is WP:TOOSOON. The Shrek 5 section on the main Shrek (franchise) article is reasonably robust - would be equally happy with a redirect to there before significant coverage allows creation of a separate article. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 17:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:NFF. Sources in various languages include https://www.lesinrocks.com/cinema/shrek-5-nest-pas-pres-de-sortir-au-cinema-suite-a-un-nouveau-report-pour-la-saga-dreamworks-678247-12-08-2025/ https://www.lefigaro.fr/cinema/shrek-5-retarde-a-nouveau-sa-sortie-a-juin-2027-20250816 https://www.24matins.fr/deception-autour-de-shrek-5-marvel-serait-a-lorigine-du-dernier-revers-1394011 https://www.filmstarts.de/nachrichten/1000159229.html https://eldiario.com/2025/08/12/universal-dreamworks-animation-retrasaron-estreno-shrek-5-2027/ https://revistamonet.globo.com/filmes/noticia/2025/08/a-teoria-dos-fas-sobre-o-motivo-para-o-adiamento-da-estreia-de-shrek-5-centrada-no-vazamento-de-suposto-roteiro.ghtml https://www.omelete.com.br/filmes/shrek-5-adiado-2027 https://www.radiofrance.fr/mouv/podcasts/la-chronique-de-jules-thiebaut/une-polemique-transphobe-entoure-shrek-5-1065518 etc, etc. - E. Ux 06:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These above sources in French, Spanish and German (edited: auto type error that mentioned Dutch before) are nothing that has not already been discussed in source analysis for English articles. Routine news mostly covering the postponement of the film from 2026 to 2027 but I will do a quick analysis of these.

Source Analysis.

Omlete.com, Routine, about postpone from 2026 to 2027, why and who is starring.
Radiofrance, Routine, about the concern over the new design after the teaser was unveiled.
Revistamonet, Routine about postpone.
Eldiariao, Routine about postponement and about who is starring in the film.
Filmstarts.de, Routine, same postponement and about who is starring.
24matins, Routine, same postponement
Lefigaro, Routine, postponement and who will be starring.
Lesinrocks.com, Routine, postponement and who is starring.

So no significant coverage to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Routine, how? It’s significant and focusing on the film. It’s coverage about aspects of the production (cast, story, style) and its release. Plenty more exists. - E. Ux 12:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did not list any Dutch source......only French, German, Spanish and Portuguese...I can add some in Czech, Polish, Italian, Galician, and Dutch etc, though, as significant coverage in many languages exist - E. Ux 12:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok to differ Eva UX/Mushy Yank. But like in analysis that none of them had significant coverage enough to pass WP:NFILM, that talked about same subject "postponement". Even if you add sources from any more different languages here and if they are all about same topic that has already been analysed above and for English sources, it will be of no help. RangersRus (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not same aspect of the topic exactly, and not what is called routine. - E. Ux 16:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for a whole article. RangersRus (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which said coverage is not. - E. Ux 15:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And please amend your edited comment about Dutch sources per WP:REDACT as your changes make my subsequent reply impossible to understand. (’But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes.’)--- E. Ux 11:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete - Per source analysis, it is still too early, has info that doesnt specify anything about filming, story nor meets significant coverage. just bcoz its a part of successful series doesnt really mean it has to be mainspace. Bonadart (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG and the redesign is non-routine coverage about its production. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I feel like considering the release date is over two years away, this article feels a little bit premature. Maybe we can combine it with the Shrek page, but overall, it just feels too early. At least to me. OrlandoApollosFan69 (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shrek_(franchise)#Shrek_5_(2027): The source analyses above are fairly convincing, but this film will almost certainly be notable in the next year, so redirecting preserves the page history when it's ready to be a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shrek_(franchise)#Shrek_5_(2027). It's WP:TOOSOON. Not at all clear that enough has happened in production to pass WP:NFF.4meter4 (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here, opinion is roughly even divided between Keep, Draftify or Redirect this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The film may be little less than two years away, but it already exists and it has plenty of reliable sources, so there’s no real need to delete it just to recreate it in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.172.162 (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think we shall delete this article and recreate it in the future.

Godzilla x Kong: Supernova and Avengers: Secret Wars releases in two years in 2027 and its article hasn’t been deleted only for it to be planned to be recreated after a year or two has it?

it’s better off to let it live. 2A04:4A43:8E6F:F3EB:C067:9160:1A70:6622 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shrek_(franchise)#Shrek_5_(2027), I guess. Shouldn't be a red link given that there is at least some sourced info but not quite enough to justify a separate article per NFF. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As nominator REDIRECT to Shrek_(franchise)#Shrek_5_(2027) is also acceptable. RangersRus (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There'll be always things about this film as time goes on. We might need to add material from official, reliable, independent, and third-party sources if any appears. Besides being maintained occasionally and people searching for new material, this article shouldn't go anywhere. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There'll be always things about this film as time goes on. This is not a reasonable reason to keep the article but makes more sense to draftify or Redirect and add significant coverage that gets generated when release date comes closer or even better when released. RangersRus (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Fails WP:NFF. Just because there is press about the production does not mean there is something notable about the production. The press is your typical announcements and promotion for the film.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above - Voice recording for the actual feature film has not begun yet. The Media Expert (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Kuwait at the 1968 Summer Olympics. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saoud Obaid Daifallah

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

Declined prod. Added source is tiny mention and does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kuwait at the 1968 Summer Olympics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kuwait at the 1968 Summer Olympics: Merely participating in the Olympics is no longer enough, we need to see WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guarantee you that the very first Olympian in the history of Kuwait, which has decent media that gives in-depth coverage to their Olympians when active, has SIGCOV in Kuwait. Of course, we'll need someone to actually look for sources, which it seems no one tries to do... BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like the article creator did? Let'srun (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really relevant to the subject's notability. Ike Lek (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP. In ordinary times, not a big problem, but nowadays, this is so. The burden of proof for a BLP is in the proponents. Find three good sources, add them, then ping me. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In ordinary times, not a big problem – what's not "ordinary" about this time? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Bearian is referring to various legal actions contemplated against Wikimedia Geschichte (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kuwait at the 1968 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD. If adequate sources come to light the article can always be restored. Ingratis (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Middletown Adult Education

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

Article with no sources - seems with only local interest - fails WP:NCORP - has tag for notability since 2014. Asteramellus (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I've done searches under both the former name of "Woodrow Wilson Veterans School" which gave me only obituaries and incidental coverage, and under the current name which didn't find me anything. If someone looked really hard it's possible they would turn up significant coverage in newspapers, but it fails a basic search for me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008

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

It has been suggested that legislation is automatically considered notable under WP:GNG, WP:RS, etc.

WP:PSTS states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources"
WP:WPNOTRS says "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research."

The excessive use of primary sources in this article strays into original research. (the primary legislation it was made under, other statutory instruments, and a document written by the administering government department.)

I don't think this topic is notable enough to warrant its own article.

While I have found three secondary sources which mention the regulations, none of them explain the details contained within it.

I stress the phrasing of

WP:WHYN states that "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic"

I don't think this threshold as stated in WP:WHYN is met (as stated immediately above this sentence).

I don't think this article justifies a merge. Landpin (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Landpin (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005

I find the nomination unconvincing and WP:SOFIXIT carrying rather more weight. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose a merger with an appropriate target, but why didn't you just do a proposed merger? Bearian (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a merge is the right option because the content is esoteric enough to justify a straight deletion. I think straight deletion would be better. There have been times where I've suggested a merge even when I personally preferred deletion because I'm aware of views like yours, which ended up concluding a merge would be wrong. See Talk:Parish council (England)#Merge proposal. Landpin (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of regulatory reform orders. I'm not convinced that a merger is not a good option here. Bearian (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a regulatory reform order. Possibly you are mixing this up with Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 the afd for which has been linked above.

they have nothing substantive linking them beyond their their Wikipedia categorisation and the class of legislation they belong to and this is just a normal statutory instrument. A regulatory reform order is a specific subset of statutory instruments. Landpin (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources will likely be in legal textbooks. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Sources like these could be used to improve the article: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] Legal journals are likely to have more.4meter4 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a pretty significant aspect of starting up a limited company, and anyone who is a company director will be bemused at the idea that this isn't notable or even esoteric. There is a whole service sector devoted to designing Model Articles to fit the legislation. It's an article that needs improvement, context and better sourcing.

ChrysGalley (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see scholarly papers addressing this set of regulations alongside other UK corp governance topics: [8], [9], [10]. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Adam Arcuragi. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death Gospel

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

Cannot find any evidence of this being a standalone or notable genre beyond Adam Arcuragi. The cited sources are all about Arcuragi, including the paper by Harriss which only mentions Arcuragi talking about his inspirations. There is also this post, but most of the artists mentioned don't seem to identify with or credit it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Adam Arcuragi: It looks like there's some good referencing, but agree it's not really substantive enough to justify it's own page when Arcuragi is the only one connected to the genre. Nil🥝 04:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Adam Arcuragi: Sourcing is good, but there's no evidence this is an actual genre associated with anyone other than this one musician. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. I see some doubt about the notability, or even the existence, of the subject. But there's a clear consensus that the current content of the article is unfit for mainspace, making a draft, and ideally an AfC review, ideal for this situation. Owen× ☎ 13:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Squadron

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG. Not supported by independent sources. Lacks notability.Keith H99 (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The existence of an entity known as the "New Orleans Squadron" would appear to be the creation of a banned user. Neither primary nor secondary sources use this term to describe the assets of the United States Navy that were stationed at New Orleans. 2. This is written by an indefinitely suspended user with a history of adding essays to wikipedia. 3. It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. 4. Given that this "unit" is not documented elsewhere, it is a new "unit" as theorised by the creator's original research. This "unit" is not recognized as such by the United States Navy. 4. The article is unsourced, like a lot of the fantasy essays that he published on wikipedia. It is a given that one of the ships mentioned was at the Battle of Lake Borgne but it was not there as part of this fantasy "unit".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keith_H99#The_Borge_belt_-_Az81964444_is_$1LENCE_D00600D?

Further comment on this user's fantasist activities above. Keith H99 (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I checked my sources as well. While I support the deletion of the current article due to the lack of citations and questionable content, it appears that the title of New Orleans Squadron was retroactively made to refer to the gaggle of Navy-related boats in the area, and as such counts as original research/imaginative. I have found nothing that refers to an established squadron raised for the War of 1812. This article from the USNI refers to a formal New Orleans Station tasked with the protection of American assets in the region that fought during the war. The American Battlefield Trust also refers to an to the small fleet in the region that defended the area. The article could be true if mentions of an established unit are removed.

On a related note, I saw your comments on the article's talk page. I can confirm that a Tickler did exist during the campaign, although it is questionable weather she was commissioned or not. Many of the small 1-gun gallies have little information on them, as they were likely purchased for the wart. GGOTCC 16:15, 22 August 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 August 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After a quick Google scholar search, I've found a few sources that mention "New Orleans Squadron" ([11], [12], [13], [14]), though I'm not sure it applies to the same squadron mentioned in the article. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Significa liberdade

The existing article states the Squadron existed from an undetermined start date through 1838. I do not believe this to be the case, insofar as a different group name of the Navy vessels, being those of the "New Orleans Station", was used to refer to those vessels in this locality.

The articles, upon first glance, would appear to relate to an entity that was in existence decades later, and certainly after the date when it was purportedly merged with the Home Squadron.

It appears an entity of this name was in existence, albeit fifty years later, and whose vessels did not therefore participate in the War of 1812.

The article was created by an editor who created a number of fantasy essays, the content of which did not stand up to scrutiny. Some of their fantasy content lingered on wikipedia for many years. This seemed like another essay that could not be rewritten and was best deleted. Keith H99 (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Keith H99! I have no issue with this article being deleted, just wanted to share a few sources I found that might be useful. It is worth noting that one of the sources is discussing 1814 and mentions the Squadron. Again, I have no idea if this is the same squadron discussed in the article. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again,

The Vogel article (via JSTOR) has "New Orleans" in uppercase, and "squadron" in lowercase. As such it is using a collective noun to describe some vessels, and is not referring to a formally titled body of ships that is a permanent formation.

A search was performed within the excellent fourth volume of The Naval War of 1812, Edited by Hughes & Brodine, Jr., from the Naval Historical Center. There were no instances of "New Orleans Squadron" that I encountered. Given this is a US Navy publication, via the G.P.O., I would have expected the proper nouns of US Navy formations to be in evidence within this publication, where a bona fide formation exists.

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/publications/publications-by-subject/naval-war-of-1812.html

I am puzzled that if an entity of this name was in existence during the American Civil War, why has this not been reflected in this article, within the last 15 years? Keith H99 (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of pertinence to this article, I looked at the US Navy's website entry for USS Louisiana.

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/l/louisiana-i.html

They refer to the sloop as "The heaviest and most powerfully armed ship in Patterson's small flotilla". Were it the case that the formation commanded by Patterson were known as the "New Orleans Squadron" then I would have expected such a term to have been used here. Keith H99 (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Significa liberdade.

I am pleased to report that the other article, a copyright violation for nearly 15 years, has been addressed by a root-and-branch rework.

It does seem that the banned user only "wrote" when putting together his nationalistic fantasy essays, and for the genuinely noteworthy topics, he plagiarised content from elsewhere on the internet. Keith H99 (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent time recently on rescuing the USS Louisiana from fourteen years of copyright violation, to revamp it, and to similarly add further content to USS Carolina from reliable sources. I have yet to see any reference to the fantasy unit of "New Orleans Squadron" in any of the literature.Keith H99 (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify to Draft:New Orleans Station per WP:No original research. The current article is clearly WP:SYNTH. There probably could be an entry on the real New Orleans Station active during the War of 1812. This article could be re-tooled to be on that. However, I'm not sure it is worth keeping this article to pursue that task. It might be just better to pursue that from scratch.4meter4 (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 19:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apidog

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

non-notable software/software company COOLIDICAE🕶 18:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If we look at the sources, they are neither reliable nor independent. Such random websites have been presented as sources, fails WP:NCORP. Baqi:) (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 09:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does fail WP:NCORP. Would need more and better sources in order to pass. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Casale

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

completely non-notable "therapist" - 0 independent reliable sources covering them either academically or in any other fashion. also complete and total nonsense promo. COOLIDICAE🕶 18:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am rewriting the content for a more objective and encyclopedic approach, and to properly illustrate it's significance as public information. Archiealibasa (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The person is a notable activist and advocate for neurodivergence sensitivity, affirmation and acceptance in the community. This is illustrated by his invitation to give a TedX talk to discuss his experience living a neurodivergent/autistic/adhd/audhd individual. Archiealibasa (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the 1.) lack of notability, 2.) lack of sourcing to support notability elsewhere and 3.) your inability to appropriate disclose your affiliation to the subjects you've written about, so instead we're forced into this bureaucratic nonsense. Also TedX talks are worthless for notability. COOLIDICAE🕶 18:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you call Wikipedia's fair process as "bureaucratic nonsense" then you're not fit to review and place judgment on other people's output. Find another job. Archiealibasa (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the personal attacks to yourself please. Yes the process is bureaucratic, could it be better? Probably, but it's what we have to work with. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is well known in the neurodivergent and mental health community. Most of us don't know him, specially the reviewers here, but he is well-known, appreciated and a champion of neurodivergent inclusion and acceptance in their fast-growing community. Archiealibasa (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being well known but with no sourcing to show it doesn't help the situation. If he's in a fast-growing community, that seems to indicate that the person isn't yet notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the creator feels like continuing to hound on this subject, here's a source list.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://practiceofthepractice.com/creating-a-neurodivergent-group-practice-with-patrick-casale-gp-260/			Just a generic blurb submitted by the subject/their PR team if they have one, it's nothing more than a promotional place holder	✘ No
https://voyageraleigh.com/interview/inspiring-conversations-with-patrick-casale-of-all-things-private-practice/			as established in many prior deletion discussions, Voyage____ is basically an interview publishing that is only pay for publishing (I can link proof, again, if needed)	✘ No
https://profitfirstprofessionals.com/podcast/patrick-casale-insights-for-neurodivergent-leadership-in-business/			interview, from an unreliable, unknown "profit first" (lol) publication on a medical professional?	✘ No
https://selling-the-couch.captivate.fm/episode/encore-creating-authentic-win-win-relationships-with-colleagues	podcast	it's reliable for things like "my favorite color is blue"	obviously	✘ No
https://resilientmindcounseling.com/patrick-casale/	his own website	reliable in that it exists and he exists		✘ No
https://www.therapyden.com/therapist/patrick-casale-asheville-nc	same as 5, except it's a third party, or maybe second party?			✘ No
https://canvasrebel.com/meet-patrick-casale/	another paid for placement in an unknown, unreliable publication			✘ No
https://brettwhitmarsh.com/neurodivergent-leadership-insights-from-patrick-casale/	probably not, this is just a medium-esque blog	see above		✘ No
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/resilient-mind-counseling-asheville-nc/1001943	just a listing for his services			✘ No
https://practiceofthepractice.com/creating-a-neurodivergent-group-practice-with-patrick-casale-gp-226/	see 1			✘ No
https://practiceoftherapy.com/creativity-neurodiversity-and-entrepreneurship-in-private-practice/	podcast featuring the subject		not coverage	✘ No
https://www.therapymarketer.co/articles/how-to-offer-retreats-for-therapists-with-patrick-casale	another interview			✘ No
https://www.joinheard.com/articles/the-complete-list-of-income-streams-for-therapists	probably not independent but in any case, it's not significant or relevant	just a random blog		✘ No
https://www.drlizlistens.com/podcast-appearances/let-s-end-hustle-culture-internalized-capitalism-all-things-private-practice-with-patrick-casale	absolutely not independent, it's a podcast featuring him and it's not even a notable podcast	someone talking about themselves is not reliable for anything other than basic information like their favorite color		✘ No
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/all-things-private-practice-podcast/id1596161682	just an apple podcast link			✘ No
https://allbrainsbelong.org/divergent-conversations/	not even about him, but it's an interview with someone else			✘ No
https://www.audible.com/podcast/Divergent-Conversations/B0BR8HSKW4	see 15			✘ No
https://www.espeakers.com/marketplace/es/profile/50885/patrick-casale	see 15,17 and everything else			✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyImqW69OY4&ab_channel=TEDxTalks	see WP:TEDX			✘ No
https://www.allthingspractice.com/new-zealand-neurodivergent	another link to a self promo website			✘ No
https://www.empoweredescapes.com/greece-retreat-2025			i don't need to explain this anymore, let the giant "Enjoy 6 Days & 5 Nights on the Beautiful island of Crete, Greece. Chania is breathtaking. It's Time To Put Yourself First" pop up add do it for you	✘ No
Error: a source must be specified				? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

COOLIDICAE🕶 20:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG per the source analysis above.4meter4 (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very non-notable individual. Does not pass academic notability as there are ZERO publications by him in Gscholar or Jstor, Gnews also draws a blank. The chart above pretty much shows no RS used, nor can I find any. Very much PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this not yet notable fellow. - Roxy the dog 12:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP with credible allegation of paid editing. In ordinary times, not big problems, but nowadays, this is a huge problem, with powerful forces seeking to disrupt us. Read the news. Come back in 17 months. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks for the helpful source analysis. After review, regardless of the potention UPE and COI, I think he is clearly not notable enough. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bleu

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

Local radio host - Google search and news search yield no significant non-local coverage, and awards not significant enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Current references almost exclusively non-independent local radio news sources. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 16:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems to have been been the subject of a couple moderate-length newspaper profiles about his personal life,^[1]^[2] and the loss of his job in 1989 was covered by multiple large newspapers, who both called him a "fixture".^[3]^[4] From across the country, a New York Daily News reporter called him "popular" in 1988^[5] and his 1998 visit to his North Dakota hometown was front page local news.^[6] As recently as 2011, an article in the San Francisco Chronicle called him a "major name".^[7] Most recently interviewed by the California Historical Radio Society who seem to treat him as a figure of some prominence, although I can't tell how important this organization is.^[8] I'm still calling my !vote here "weak" because I'm not sure how much of this coverage is routine for 1980s radio and television performers, so other editors contextualizing these articles would be helpful. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, California, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Don Bleu 'suffers' through L.A. winter". Minneapolis Tribune. 1979-09-28. p. 3C. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Malaspina, Rick (1981-08-30). "Don Bleu and his lawn wait to grow up". Oakland Tribune. p. I-26. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Mann, Bill (1989-07-27). "Fired, but not Bleu". Oakland Tribune. p. C-6. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Fong-Torres, Ben (1989-07-24). "'X-100' puts DJ Don Bleu out of work". San Francisco Chronicle. p. F1. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Mirabella, Alan (1988-09-12). "Institutionalized comedy". New York Daily News. p. 31. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Cory, Matt (1998-01-29). "This guy's voice really carries". Grand Forks Herald. p. 1. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Fong-Torres, Ben (2011-12-11). "Big changes for Don Bleu, 'Green,' KNEW". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2012-07-19.
^ Bleu, Don (2025-02-14). "The Don Bleu Interview" (Interview). Interviewed by Bennett, Michael. California Historical Radio Society. Archived from the original on 2025-03-24.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources already present in the article appear to pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources listed above are enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but please make sure all the sources found are added. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peco (unit)

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

I was unable to find any secondary usage of this measurement unit. May be a WP:NEO. Even the company that invented the unit doesn't seem to discuss the unit much. Suriname0 (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Suriname0 (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that it looks like there isn't any focused secondary coverage. What I could find mostly either appears to be somewhat obscure brand/product names, even when I try to focus searches with terms like dielectric. KoA (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely sourced article that's basically a DICDEF or an ad for the company that made it up, not passing notability. LightlySeared (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not verifiable. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as functionally an advertisement. Literature search finds no sources with which to improve the page. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ansarada

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. The sources are not very strong, and the subject’s notability is unclear. The page comes across as promotional for the company. Oftermart (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Oftermart (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is rather promotional and lacking reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At least a little more discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are some sources with coverage: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. No opinion about whether this is sufficient enough to pass WP:ORGCRIT. It might be. Or it might not. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - highly promotional and has minimal references. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2010 Pan American Cycling Championships#Track. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dalila Rodríguez Hernandez

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

Subject lacks the required WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. PROD was contested but zero sources showing notability have been added. Let'srun (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cycling, and Cuba. Let'srun (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2010 Pan American Cycling Championships#Track – Where she won a bronze medal. Svartner (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She actually won a silver medal at the 2010 Pan American Cycling Championships#Track not bronze. That medal at a significant competition, combined with these sources [20], [21], [22], [23], cumulatively mean she passes GNG in my opinion. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first three sources there lack significant coverage. The last source there is from when she was a minor and as a local publication fails WP:YOUNGATH. Let'srun (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:YOUNGATH is part of WP:NSPORT not WP:GNG. If GNG is passed, then SNG can be ignored. Ike Lek (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is a more stringent criteria than the WP:GNG, similarly to how WP:NCORP operates. As such, it can't be ignored in this case. Let'srun (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where it says that. I think WP:YOUNGATH is a valid argument against meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT claims that other comments are making, but not against this one which claims WP:GNG. Ike Lek (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But your argument isn't GNG either, since none of these have SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my argument. I was just commenting on WP:YOUNGATH. I don't have a stance on notability here as of yet. Ike Lek (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she meets WP:NCYCLING (point 3 and 5). She won the World Cup Cali at the 2008–09 UCI Track Cycling World Cup Classics in the team pursuit. 178.197.203.101 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPORTSCRIT still requires that at least one piece of WP:SIGCOV be cited in the article, even if the subject meets a SNG. Can you cite any SIGCOV? Let'srun (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per reasonings above. Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Seacactus 13, which of the sources offer IRS SIGCOV that does not fail YOUNGATH? To meet GNG we need multiple such sources, and to meet SPORTCRIT one of those must be cited in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. All the sources mentioned above are purely routine primary event recaps with no secondary coverage; the last also fails YOUNGATH, and is entirely just repeating her words from an interview, apart from two partial sentences of primary reporting: The 16-year-old, who was the top female cyclist at the continental competition, stated that... and The Antillean native of this capital dedicated her titles to her mother, .... Nowhere close to SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meeting multiple times WP:NCYCLING with winning the track cycling World Cup and multiple national time trial champion and won a stage of the Tour de Prince Edward Island [fr]. And nice to mention she is top-8 of the World (7th at World Championships). 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NCYCLING is irrelevant if SPORTCRIT is not met. JoelleJay (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - the poor sourcing in this WP:BLP requires a redirect or deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To the proposed destination. There doesn't seem to be adequate coverage of this cyclist just yet. Teppa-Nyxos-XXVII (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I'm uncertain of whether those sources are weighty enough to be considered toward SIGCOV: but regardless, the material in them that we could use is simply prosified statistics. If that's all we can write, a reader is served equally well by a redirect to an article about the tournament in question. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I find the nomination to carry more P&G weight than the Keeps, but there is no consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 13:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temples Order 1971

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

I could not find enough secondary sources to establish notability.

In some situations, it has been suggested that legislation automatically meets WP:RS, WP:GNG, etc, but this isn't true.

WP:PRIMARY states "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."
WP:SIGCOV states "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" and that sources "should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."

I found 1 source that mentions the legislation but I haven't been able to substantiate what it says, because I don't have access to it.

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Principles_of_Local_Government_Law/GRxXLUlKbxsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Temples+Order+1971&dq=Temples+Order+1971&printsec=frontcover

I haven't found any other sources. Landpin (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Landpin (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 14:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some secondary sources out there. I have added a few. John Cross (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have added the websites of two of the organisations that administer the legislation - they aren't secondary. You have also added a Substack post, which is self-published. Landpin (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's good enough. Significant coverage doesn't mean perfect. Bearian (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. By comparison, something legal that exists, but lacks significant coverage, is being discussed right now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possession proceedings. Bearian (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(This is information I learned after I started this AfD)

The content in this article is an infobox and a sentence of text, with the sentence of text being essentially a strict subset of what Liberty (division)#Inner and Middle Temples contains.

if I had seen that I'd have proposed a merger just to move the infobox... Landpin (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHYN says
- We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.
as it stands, I don't think the article can support this given it is literally just a sentence and an infobox. Landpin (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanna Yastremska

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

Fails GNG. Tennis player who has no professional career to speak of and who also seems to have been inactive since 2022. All the coverage I can find about her is associated with her far more well-known sister Dayana Yastremska whose article I suggest a redirect to as an ATD if people prefer rather than to a straight deletion. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, Europe, and Ukraine. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google search and news yield no significant coverage outside of her association with Dayana Yastremska. Her sister's article mentions her only once, so I don't think a redirect is strictly necessary. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 13:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] - She has coverage in Ukrainian. News articles stated that she is focusing on her singing and acting career and not tennis. Ceriy (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't make her notable. You would not start a Wikipedia article on her based on her "focusing on her singing and acting career" neither of which has amounted to anything significant. She still doesn't pass GNG. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – WP:GNG isn't determined based on our subjective evaluation of the subject's significance or accomplishments, but the amount of independent reliable SIGCOV. – Ike Lek (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:Not Inherited? If this person's sister were not famous then there would be zero coverage of her. All the coverage that there is mentions her sister. I swear Wikipedia is mad. You want an article about a wannabe actor/singer with a famous sister who gets media coverage entirely because of said famous sister, but you want to delete Olympic finalists and even medalists because they come from a pre-internet age so proving they had coverage (although it is commonsense that they did) is impossible. By the way I'm using "you" collectively not personally. Anyway I'm saying no more on this. Keep it. Maybe she'll win an Oscar or a Grammy lol. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you are not talking about me personally, but I have been tracking down print sources to save these many of these Olympians from deletion, so it's weird of you to give this response to me. I spent hours last night searching Czech newspaper archive listings online and putting in loan requests through my library just to try to save two Olympian articles, so the implication that I would be part of that problem bothers me. Ike Lek (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per WP:GNG, as the provided media are either unreliable or fail WP:SIGCOV.

The headlines from the first source, PHOTO. Yastremska's sister showed her beauty. 10 out of 10, PHOTO. Bared her legs. Ukrainian tennis player impressed with her look, PHOTO. The Ukrainian tennis player published spicy photos. Fire. Clear case of tabloid journalism. They basically reported that she posted something to Instagram.
OK. Report that she started her professional tennis career.
Again, this is a tabloid-style report on her Instagram post, The Ukrainian tennis star's sister wore a seductive dress for a stunning photoshoot
Glavcom reported on an Instagram story she posted where she sang. This source is unreliable:
1. They reported that Putin might be planning to blow up the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, citing an anonymous Russian Telegram channel as a source.
2. In another piece, they said that a Hungarian airline forced a Ukrainian soldier off a plane in a headline. Two days later, they added a comment from a Ukrainian diplomat saying the man wasn't a soldier, but they didn't change the headline. They also didn't mention that the text was corrected, just appended "updated" to the title.
3. In 2016, they shared a story that Swedish diplomat Carl Bildt could become the next Ukrainian PM, which was widely republished by Russian media such as Sputnik.
The sport focused site provides only routine reports on her tournament performance, so it fails WP:SIGCOV. They only published three stories specifically about her: that she would play in a tournament, that she would play against a Swiss tennis player, and that she lost.
Same as above.

I didn't find any more reliable sources with significant coverage about her, therefore, this should be deleted. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as a tennis player, actress or singer. Just the sister of a famous tennis player as shown by all the existing sources and those put forward in this discussion.

Shrug02 (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dayana Yastremska as WP:ATD. Valid redirect as she is mentioned in her sister's article. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MultiBank

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:ORG notability guidelines. All three cited sources seem to be WP:CORPTRIV. Searching online, I failed to find any WP:CORPDEPTH coverage. It appears to be yet another Forex broker. A dedicated article seems to be premature at this moment. Vgbyp (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Internet, Hong Kong, United Arab Emirates, and California. jolielover♥talk 17:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 07:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. In my searches for sources, I found largely press releases. The company does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2034 FIFA World Cup#Venues. I will protect the redirect momentarily. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qiddiya Coast Stadium

AfDs for this article:

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

Per the previous AfD, I think it is still TOOSOON to create this article, given that construction has not yet begun. However, the article has been repeatedly recreated with questionable sourcing. As such, I wanted to bring back to AfD with a suggestion to redirect and PP for EC. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be changed to a draft article for now?? Harold9595959 (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Football, and Saudi Arabia. jolielover♥talk 17:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt, due to the recreation history. If and when there is enough sourcing to show notability, an admin can allow it to be recreated. Right now it fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Locked redirect to 2034 FIFA World Cup#Venues Things can change and nine years is an absurd amount of WP:TOOSOON to even think of an article when the venue is still in planning, but we need to consider WP:ATD rather than just locking it up and dealing with title evasion to push this article through. Nathannah • 📮 23:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and lock per Nathannah reasoning. Govvy (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (with redirect protected) as above. Too soon for an article about a stadium where construction is not starting until 2029. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OUTCOMES. We deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 in American television. Why would a stadium that's not even going to be build before 2029 more notable than TV shows that are already in production 17 months in advance? Bearian (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The difference is that a year of television has a lot of unknowns compared to a World Cup plan which has known stadiums proposed in certain places. This may go by the wayside for another stadium plan in another place, and then the worst we have to do is start an RfD to remove the redirect. Nathannah • 📮 20:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎ without prejudice against a legitimate nomination. Can a machine be a meatpuppet? The nominator claims someone "connected to the subject" asked them to file this AfD. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE requires the subject themselves to request the deletion, not their representative or agent, be they human or machine. Once we discard BLPREQUESTDELETE, all we're left with are the ramblings of an LLM, which has no standing in an XfD. The existence of COI, which was obvious even before its admission here, only amplifies the inescapable impression that this nomination was driven not by concern for the project's notability guidelines, nor by the subject's interest in privacy, but by a (paid?) attempt to remove sourced information critical of the subject. Wrapping it up in flowery LLM language does little to hide the true intent. Owen× ☎ 14:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Azami

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination – the previous AfD (closed no consensus on 24 May 2025) did not fully address several serious WP:BLP / sourcing issues that remain unresolved. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majid Azami (24 May 2025).

BLP sourcing problems: The article’s most serious allegations (e.g., involvement in military oil networks and links to sanctioned groups) rely heavily on politically affiliated or non-mainstream outlets and databases (e.g., Iran International, IFMAT, OpenSanctions, iranianuk.com; see the current reference list) rather than multiple high-quality, independent secondary sources with careful attribution, as required by WP:BLP/WP:BLPSOURCES. Contentious material about living persons must be written conservatively and supported by strong, reliable sources. The article itself is tagged for BLP sourcing issues as of August 2025.

Insufficient significant independent coverage of the person (WP:GNG / WP:NPERSON): Mainstream pieces (e.g., Reuters; AP) mention the subject in sanction round-ups but do not provide in-depth biographical coverage focused on the individual. Brief mentions in sanction notices or pieces primarily about companies/networks are not enough to establish standalone notability for a biography.

Undue / promotional or vague claims: Statements like “one of the most influential figures” are supported by marginal sources (e.g., kountrass.com; iranianuk.com) and should not be used to support weighty claims in a BLP. Such claims either require high-quality sourcing or removal per WP:BLP.

One-event–style notability (WP:BLP1E): The article’s notability appears to rest chiefly on a single cluster of events (U.S. Treasury/OFAC designations and associated media pickup in late 2023), which on its own typically does not justify a standalone BLP without broader, sustained, in-depth coverage about the person.

Given the above, I believe the article fails WP:GNG/WP:NPERSON and is unsafe under WP:BLP.

Proposed outcomes:

Delete the article per GNG/NPERSON/BLP.
If consensus is not to delete, Redirect to Sepehr Energy Jahan Nama Pars Company (article already exists and provides context), pending any future emergence of multiple independent, high-quality sources with significant coverage of the person. See WP:ATD (redirect as an alternative).

Notes: The previous AfD (24 May 2025) closed no consensus; more than two months have passed and this renomination focuses specifically on sourcing/BLP concerns that were not fully resolved. See WP:RENOM.

Osmium190 (talk) 15:48, 19 August 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 August 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks so mush, now it is ok? Osmium190 (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, the nomination looks LLM-generated. If that's the case, it is unacceptable, and the AFD nom was also Osmium190 (talk · contribs)'s second edit ever. For these reasons this AFD is tainted. Geschichte (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. Ok, let’s clear something, FIRST: editing and improving passages with LLM is not a Fault. Use this tool could improve efficacy and clarity of meaning to readers. SECOND: the reason that this is my just second edit is a bad thing? Am I inputted wrong information? I was asked from somebody to help him delete the page that is related to him, and this allegation are so serious when it come to the first record of google search when somebody search his name and because of this reason Wikipedia is so sensitive to living person pages.

My suggestion is concentrating on the arguments that I mentioned above and let discuses on non-biased and professional way instead of give me allegation. (this is my not LLM passage!) good luck Osmium190 (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editing and improving passages with LLM is a huge problem, and will never be accepted here at Wikipedia. It also follows that you did not provide any arguments, a machine did - and that is not relevant for us to discuss. Furthermore, since you have had contact with "somebody" offline we have now entered WP:COI territory which I would like you to consult. Geschichte (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok, i did not know that, thanks for your clear answer.

disclosure: I was contacted off-wiki by someone connected to the subject, so I have a COI.

I won’t edit the article directly.

my concern is that the article relies heavily on marginal sources for serious allegations

(e.g., OpenSanctions, IFMAT, kountrass, iranianuk), which is problematic under WP:BLPSOURCES.

The coverage also appears tied to a single event (sanctions in late 2023), raising WP:BLP1E

concerns. Redirect to the related company article may be the best solution. ~~~~ Osmium190 (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate that someone should close this instantly. It was written with AI by a user with an at the time undisclosed (later disclosed) conflict of interest. Geschichte (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reasons for request of deletion the page are more important than the way that the request written.

this page is not a usual public page of Wikipedia, as I now people should not use Wikipedia as a tools for make allegations to each other for their personal reasons.

especially low-profile individual with limited public presence. Segalbenis (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as I know people ...

Segalbenis (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the reasons for request of deletion" - which you did not provide. A machine provided it, which is not regarded as trustworthy on Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

but the reasons are real and need to think.

if a new request for deletion created with these reasons and just typed with human, the problem would be solved? Segalbenis (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aresh Banaji

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

non-notable music engineer - at best a background person who has no significant coverage anywhere other than their name appearing as a passing mention (ie. "my assistant" and as a title in print) COOLIDICAE🕶 17:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Maharashtra, and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 17:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing seems to be in articles about other people where this person is only named, nothing specific about them. I don't see any coverage either, only the name used in articles about other people. Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Respectable, but not notable career. –DMartin 22:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPRODUCER, a cursory search revealed nothing useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I thought the subject met criterion 2 of WP:NMUSICOTHER when I reviewed it, but it was a poor sense of assessment on my part. I will go with the majority’s decision to delete. Charlie (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails on WP:NPRODUCER as mentioned. Non-notable and lacking WP:SIGCOV. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen Wilkerson

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and Oregon. Let'srun (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More non-notable footy spam. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My concerns about poorly sourced BLPs have come true. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. If you find better sources, ping me. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails on WP:BASICSPORT and other WP:SIGCOV. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Günther Kletetschka

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

Lacks sufficient reliable sources discussing him in detail. Even the Boyce article is on phys.org which is a news aggregator. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Mathematics, Physics, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. jolielover♥talk 16:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FRINGEBLP which does not rise to WP:NFRINGE levels. Also fails WP:NPROF. jps (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFRINGE is irrelevant as it is for evaluating notability of theories, not their proponents. Barack Obama may end up saying he's a Younger Dryas enthusiast, but in no universe would WP:NFRINGE apply to him. This is a pure easy WP:GNG matter. Let's not give FRINGE authority or precedent scope it is not entitled and never will enjoy. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:FRINGEBLP asks us explicitly to consider WP:NFRINGE when evaluating whether a person is notable for their fringe promotion. Sometimes they are. In this case, they are not expressly because the fringe theory they are promoting is not notable enough having received no WP:Independent source notice. jps (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the wording or any weight of FRINGEBLP doesn't (and cannot) supersede or set a higher standard than GNG. Kinda like how all state law/constitutions in the USA ultimately are subservient/inferior to the US constitution, is how I'd thought of it. So if a person meets GNG (by mosaic or SIGCOV, either counts) than they automatically count, regardless of any FRINGE* or other lessor page. That's all. It wasn't a knock, it was just to make clear for the readers at home that "fringe" people don't have a higher minimum notability standard than non-fringe people.

Like if all things were equal in volume, weight of coverage, etc., and I was GNG for being an academic and you were GNG for being a "ghost whisperer", it's the same GNG standard. SIGCOV (several) or enough weight of other stuff over time and not just BLP1E and you're good to go with GNG. It doesn't matter if it's for my obvious biochemical research or for your less-than-obvious undead pals that only you can see. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how notability on WP works. I know some people would like it if it worked that way, but it just doesn't. In AfD discussions, the discussants look at all the different ways to assess notability and then discuss based on those. jps (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is ok, but WP:GNG is the arbiter. FRINGE et al is subservient to it and always will be. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is not the arbiter. It is practice that is the arbiter. Read WP:PAG. jps (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it with my !delete vote below and end saying you're mistaken still as we've discussed in the past, and while you're welcome to push this for cultural acceptance, deviation from WP:GNG to elevate FRINGE et al to more power is an ultra-minority position with no real power, authority or traction. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said nor ever desired to "elevate FRINGE". This is a strawman of your own invention. jps (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for basic apparent failure of WP:GNG alone. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)
Weak Delete. The current page is strange, and does a good job of indicating that he is not notable. A lot of negative material has been added if I compare this page to the earlier July 15th version. Some of this seems to be very inappropriate, marginal on WP:NPOV, and I will question why it was added.

Leaving that aside, if I ignore the negative additions I do not see a pass of WP:NPROF. He has an h-factor of 35 with 4.6K total citations, so he is not far off. I do not see anything for WP:GNG or similar. If there were some significant awards I would probably vote weak keep. If someone improves the page, removing inappropriate material then I might change my vote.Ldm1954 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of valid sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Setting aside the high-profile but low-impact archealogical and astrophysical speculation, his higher-cited work on planetary science has many coauthors; his first-author papers "Magnetic stratigraphy of Chinese loess", "Hematite vs. magnetite", "Grain size limit", etc., have 147, 98, 81, and fewer citations on Google Scholar, close but below the threshold for me. I don't think there has been enough popular press coverage of his other work to make a case for WP:GNG in place of WP:PROF.
Keep: Critiques of Günther Kletetschka and his work are evolving. To delete this article now would be a major mistake. This article provides a place where valid criticism and supporting evidence can be presented. Gunther may be another Newton or another Milli Vanilli. In either case, Günther is significant. Lets keep an open mind until we know all the facts. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 19:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a lot more liberal than most people you're gonna see here on AfD, as far as my AfD standards. If you see me going straight !delete, it's probably not notable. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not influential enough in mainstream science for WP:PROF, and not noteworthy enough as a promoter of fringe ideas to be notable by that route either. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VPP and WP:GNG. -Roxy the dog 17:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all very interesting, but not yet notable. My concerns about poorly sourced BLPs like this have come true. This lacks significant coverage in reliable sources about him. And of course, we have almost never kept an assistant professor's article. WP:DCOI: I have taught physics at a much lower level, and have written papers on a closely related topic. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe one day, but not today. WP:FRINGEBLP that is not presently notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Whilst the article is much in need of improvement, it is a topic which is shown to be notable. Consensus appears to me that we should keep the article but should move it to Shag carpet. CoconutOctopus talk 11:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shag (fabric)

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

deprodded because a redirect leads to it.

A three sentence article, all three of which are inaccurate or improperly sourced.

The first sentence states this is a worsted fabric. But there is no pile on a worsted fabric, and worsted yarns are not shaggy. it is not worsted.

The second sentencel inks to Mirriam-Webster which makes no mention of shag fabric.

The third sentence is supported by a blog which is about shag rugs, not shag fabric.

Whoever deprodded this needs a hefty kick in the pants. Roxy the dog 16:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 16:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a move might be better in this case, as there are plenty of sources about Shag carpets (and Shag rugs, Shagpile, etc.; see ngrams) and there doesn't seem to be much evidence for textile-related usage outside of carpets. I was able to find these sources (listed in chronological order):

Buying Carpets document from University of Minnesota for home economics education (1970)—see particularly page 9
Flame-Retarded Nylon Carpets in Textile Research Journal (1975)—lots of discussion of Shag carpets in relation to flammability and flame retardants
How Deep Is Your Rug? in The New York Times (1999)
Décor's Hard Edge Vanishes Behind a Textured Veil in The New York Times (2003)
Shoulderpads and shagpile: architectural referencing in the television series Gloss in Architectural History Aotearoa journal (2009)
This study about dust resuspension in different types of carpet (2014)
Sensuality and Shag Carpeting: A Design Review of a Postwar Floor Covering in The Senses and Society journal (2015)
The Return of Shag Carpet—Minus the Cocaine-Dealer Connotations in The Wall Street Journal (2018)
The second coming of the shag-pile carpet in the Financial Times (2024)
Pile in: carpet makes a comeback in the maximalist backlash in The Guardian (2025)
What’s the Best Vacuum for Carpets? in Wirecutter (2025)—discusses the problems posed by thick-pile carpets, including Shag carpets, and how specialised vacuum cleaners are sometimes required.

So I think the best option is a move to (for instance) Shag carpet, remove any inaccurate claims and add these sources to the article; WP:RM might be more appropriate. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are lots of sources about carpets. Wikipedia has lots of articles about carpets and rugs and floorcoverings.

This is not about carpet rug or pile, it is about fabric, and should not exist. Shag fabric is not a thing. I do not think that the content of this article should be moved to something else, as the content is nonsense too.

Yes, Shag carpet is the obvious title for this article, and should not be a redirect, but the content of this article should be carefully redirected to the recycle bin. I'm sure that many of the sources noted above would be useful, and believe me there will be many more out there, but not for an article with this name and about this non-existent thing. - Roxy the dog 18:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the article isn't called Shag fabric, it's called Shag, with "(fabric)" as a disambiguator. The title isn't claiming that "shag fabric" is a thing, but that "shag" (by itself) is the common term for this kind of textile, including carpets and rugs. In reality, "shag carpet" is the common name, because the only context that this kind of textile is used in is for floor coverings; Shag carpet is also the better title—for instance, compared to Shag (carpet)—because natural disambiguation is preferable to parenthetical. In addition to having the wrong title, it just so happens that the article about Shag carpet is currently very short, doesn't use many of the available sources, and doesn't adequately cover the topic; still, these are surmountable problems so aren't reasons to delete the article, in my view. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato tomato. --- The common name is "Shagpile carpet- Roxy the dog 20:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shag carpet redirects here and is clearly a notable subject. Rename the article if necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered if you'd show up. Have a rhetorical kick in the pants. I would support a rename to Shagpile carpet but Shag even if disambiguated with (fabric) or fabric, - is not a thing - The most sensible thing to do is delete this as proposed though. Roxy the dog 15:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a WP:COMMONNAME assessment, it appears shag carpet is the clear winner over shagpile carpet. See Pineapple Storage's sources above and ngram ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~You have provided no evidence to support that contention. - Roxy the dog 14:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC),~~ Actually, you did, sorry, but ngrams are routinely dismissed here, as support for people's points, and I'm dismissing this. -[reply]
So acceptable options for you are move to Shagpile carpet or delete? I can accept Shagpile carpet if we can build a seed of a consensus around that. Do you think you can convince Pineapple Storage or Tavix? ~Kvng (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agreeing with Pineapple Storage. Shag carpets are a notable topic in which the article needs improvement (and possibly renaming), not deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ingle International

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

Yet another promo page created by the same user. Doesn't meet the notability guidelines as highlighted a few years ago. Puda (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, and Canada. jolielover♥talk 15:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Nobody objects to deletion. Sandstein 05:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ordinaries of the Personal Ordinariates

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

Fails WP:NLIST for lack of sources that discuss the ordinaries of the various Anglican-rite Catholic ordinariates as a group. In contesting a PROD, A. B. said this passes NLIST since all the entries are bluelinked, but there is no evidence that sources have covered these individually notable bishops/priests as a group. (They are already listed at the pages for the individual ordinariates.) I did a BEFORE search but happy to be proven wrong if anyone can turn up sourcing to demonstrate an NLIST pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Christianity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is no evidence that sources have covered these individually notable bishops/priests as a group. It is a common misconception that this is required for a list. What WP:LIST says is that "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources..." However, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists..." Jahaza (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see it as not needed duplication since they are all already in a list at the pages for the individual ordinariates. Rolluik (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion as a contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet, Indiana

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

Another case where Baker refers only to a post office named after the postmaster, and I see no reason to doubt this, so not notable and not a town or "community". Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found, and nothing to merge. The township article is similarly uninformative. Fails WP:NPLACE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable place. Fails on GEO notability grounds. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2023 Banda Aceh anti-Rohingya protest. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teuku Wariza Aris Munandar

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

The subject is only known for his involvement as a perpetrator in the 2023 Banda Aceh anti-Rohingya protest, which makes this a clear case of WP:BLP1E, so there is no need for a standalone article. As of 2025, he remains active in local organizations in Aceh, but this has not received SIGCOV, therefore does not meet GNG. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Indonesia. jolielover♥talk 15:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Banda Aceh anti-Rohingya protest per nom, as BLP1E. LightlySeared (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. 🅷🅴🅽🆁🅸 ^{(Let's talk)} ✉ 11:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Having a whole poorly sourced BLP1E raises all sorts of headaches for us. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Bellini

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

A collegiate soccer player with just three appearances for the reserve team of Real Salt Lake. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON appears relevant. Raskuly (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Brazil, North Carolina, and Utah. Raskuly (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage passes GNG IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. [30] seems fluffy, and there are no other signs of coverage or indications of notability. Geschichte (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there's CBS Sports, but overall a lack of significant coverage for this BLP. Ping me if you find more. Bearian (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero sources demonstrating GNG; a freelance submission to MaxPreps about a 15-year-old clearly fails YOUNGATH. JoelleJay (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didi Kasim

AfDs for this article:

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

The first AfD ended with no consensus. One "weak keep" argument was that the subject's name appears in 2 Google Scholar results, but in both cases he is only listed as an interviewee, not as the author. There is no SIGCOV or independent coverage of the subject, and Google search only turns up his social media accounts. As a journalist, he does not meet any of the four criteria at WP:JOURNALIST, and in my view the subject also fails WP:GNG. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails GNG and SIGCOV. 🅷🅴🅽🆁🅸 ^{(Let's talk)} ✉ 11:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom findings. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. Excelse (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failing on WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of San Marino international footballers. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Gasperoni

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

Despite having 29 appearances for San Marino, the article of this footballer lacks significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. However, the level of that national team is low, resulting in lack of coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 15:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Some of his stats maybe muddled up with his brother Alex Gasperoni, also I don't see this article as a redirect what so ever. The nomination has failed to mention his club career for San Marino Calcio, SS Murata, ASAR, US Pietracuta, ASD Sporting Novavalmarecchia, all know negligible. There maybe some match reports and analysis on him. but 24 FIFA apps for the national team is still a feet. [31]. As long as his name is somewhere and no redirect is in place then the wikipedia search feature will pick up what's need. Govvy (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of San Marino international footballers as possible search term. Giant Snowman 18:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the proof is sourced, I'd be fine with other users who voted Redirect. Also, Joseph2302, we absolutely never redirect anyone to surname pages. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of San Marino international footballers – Per GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Umm, as I said above, I am against a redirect, that blocks search results. Govvy (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but other people can support redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of San Marino international footballers as a valid WP:ATD. This is only place where he will be mentioned forever, as the club articles don't list him unless he's on a current squad. As long as his name is somewhere and no redirect is in place then the wikipedia search feature will pick up what's need.- yes but his name is only currently mentioned in List of European association football families, List of San Marino international footballers, Gasperoni (surname page), as per results list. So deleting to "help find club information" won't work. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus to delete, article not shown to meet notability guidelines. Only keep vote was borderline bludgeoning from an editor connected to the company and did not provide policy based reasoning to keep. CoconutOctopus talk 11:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MyLogIQ

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

Article about a company, not properly sourced as passing WP:CORP criteria. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them -- but the sourcing here consists almost entirely of coverage of general business trends in which the company and/or its staff are quoted as a provider of soundbite or financial data.
But we're not looking for sources in which the company is quoted as a provider of information about other things, we're looking for sources in which the company and its operations are themselves the thing being covered and analyzed by other people.
The article also recently underwent a heavily advertorialized rewrite (of the extreme overuse of bolding variety) by an editor with a likely WP:COI -- but reverting those edits wouldn't solve the problem, as the older version wasn't neutrally written or properly sourced either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the company from having to pass GNG and CORP on much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Puerto Rico. Bearcat (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This is not a case of “passing mentions.” MyLogIQ has provided the underlying data for The Wall Street Journal’s annual CEO Pay Study and interactive graphics for more than a decade, a recurring use that goes far beyond trivial citation. Coverage also appears in The Economist, NACD Directorship, Agenda, and major outlets like Bloomberg and CNN, as well as academic sources (Harvard Law Forum, Vanderbilt Law Review). This breadth and recurrence across independent, reliable sources establishes clear notability under WP:ORGCRIT.

Note: I am affiliated with MyLogIQ (disclosed on my User Page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarketTrendsEditor (talk • contribs) 12:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Providing the data doesn't constitute GNG-worthy coverage. We're not looking for news articles in which MyLogIQ is the provider of information, we require sources in which MyLogIQ is the subject that other people are talking or writing about, and nothing short of that counts at all. Also, if you have a conflict of interest, then you're not supposed to be editing the article at all, especially not to advertorialize it or impose extreme and improper overuse of bolding. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being hired by the Wall Street Journal and other media outlets to analyze data and then have that analysis covered in news media is not the kind of independent WP:SIGCOV that results in a WP:NCORP pass. Not seeing any evidence here of coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify a point raised above: the Wall Street Journal’s annual CEO pay study is not a case of MyLogIQ being “hired” for consulting. The Journal independently selects and publishes this work because of the structured datasets we provide, and it has done so for over a decade, producing recurring features and interactive graphics built on MyLogIQ data.

This is similar with the Financial Executives Research Foundation (FERF), which based its 2016 audit fee report on MyLogIQ datasets, and with academic publications such as the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance (2020) and Vanderbilt Law Review (2022). These are independent uses and analyses, not commissioned work, and they demonstrate the kind of significant coverage and reliance that WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT anticipate.

On the point about WP:ORGCRIT, the guideline requires “significant coverage in reliable, independent sources,” which does not require a dedicated company profile. Harvard Law, Vanderbilt Law Review, FERF, and the Wall Street Journal’s recurring CEO pay studies are examples of non-trivial, independent coverage that satisfies this standard.

That said, I acknowledge my COI and leave it to uninvolved editors to determine the outcome. If consensus does not support a standalone article, I would support a redirect rather than deletion, so readers searching for the company can still locate it in the context of corporate governance data providers. Suitable redirect targets could be Corporate governance of public companies or SEC filing, since those topics directly reflect the areas where MyLogIQ is most frequently cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarketTrendsEditor (talk • contribs) 12:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 15:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~remove duplicate !vote – MyLogIQ meets WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT through significant, independent use of its datasets in media, academic, and policy sources:

The Wall Street Journal has relied on MyLogIQ data for its annual CEO pay study for over a decade, producing recurring features and interactive graphics.
The Financial Executives Research Foundation’s 2016 audit fees report was based on MyLogIQ datasets.
Academic work includes the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance (2020), Vanderbilt Law Review (2022), and Duke Financial Economics Center (2021), all of which cite and analyze MyLogIQ data.
The paper “Entrenchment or Efficiency: CEO-to-Employee Pay Ratio and the Cost of Debt” also relies on MyLogIQ datasets.
In 2022, Professor Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia University) cited MyLogIQ data in testimony before the U.S. House Oversight Committee.

These are not trivial mentions but independent, substantive uses that demonstrate notability. I acknowledge my COI and leave the decision to uninvolved editors. If consensus does not support a standalone article, a redirect to Corporate governance or SEC filing would be preferable to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarketTrendsEditor (talk • contribs) 14:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again: we're not looking for sources in which your company provides information about other things, we're looking for sources in which your company is the subject of coverage and analysis by other people. You still haven't provided any evidence of the latter at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT do not require that sources be limited to “profile pieces” about the company itself. The standard is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Repeated use of MyLogIQ data in the Wall Street Journal’s CEO pay studies, academic work at Harvard, Vanderbilt, and Duke, FERF’s audit fees report, and Professor Jeffrey Sachs’s congressional testimony demonstrate that the company’s work is treated as central to independent analysis across media, academia, and policy. This is more than trivial mention and fits GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarketTrendsEditor (talk • contribs) 12:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the very definition of "significant coverage in reliable, independent sources" means coverage in which the company is the subject, and does not mean coverage in which the company is merely a provider of data in coverage about something else. Like, "coverage about the company" is literally what "significant coverage" means. Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. As has been pointed out already, we require articles that discuss the company, not the fact that another company might make use of the company's data or reports. None of the existing sources here (or those I can find by searching) meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination with a thoughtful cogent deletion rationale. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DVB Dream

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 12:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: with WP:NPASR. Drive-by nomination with no evidence of WP:BEFORE; nominator has previously been warned for nominating without evidence of BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until someone spends some time formulating a reasoned delete argument. ~Kvng (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to DirectShow. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GraphEdit

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 12:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with DirectShow: This utility doesn't appear to meet GNG on its own but it is frequently discussed alongside its parent SDK. MidnightMayhem (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with DirectShow as already suggested in my deprod comment. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tech Expressions

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

Fails GNG with a lack of reliable sources with sigcov. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United States of America. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this extensive piece by Jack Yarwood at Fanbyte: [32]. But one source is not enough for notability. --Mika1h (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Veritas Technologies#Products and services. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive Letter Access

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

Fails WP:GNG There are no reliable sources to justify a redirect. Clenpr (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and California. jolielover♥talk 12:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Where is there a WP:redirect? ‣Andreas•⚖ 10:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this article history. Someone removed the previous PROD suggesting a redirect. Clenpr (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clenpr I'm not aware of any policy that requires reliable sources to support a redirect. What are you referring to? ~Kvng (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of such a policy either but it sounds like a good idea. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Veritas Technologies#Products and services. Since DLA was sold only as software bundled with DVD burners there's not much in the way of coverage beyond mentions. But there are enough of these mentions out there to make it a plausible search term. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Veritas Technologies#Products and services per DigitalIceAge. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-sustainability

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

WP:Neologism that I am not finding a robust literature about, seems to be a lot of WP:SYNTH in order to bring together the concept. I recommend redirecting to Sustainability Sadads (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sustainable living or Environmentalism: Per WP:ATD-M, reliably sourced portions could be merged into Sustainable living or Environmentalism, but this standalone page does not meet inclusion standards. - Juneblay (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prob Keep I agree that there is a level of synth in the page however there clearly is an academic literature and discourse about lifestyle adaptions on an individual level which add up to dramatic collective sustainability responses. How to parse and CE the page is beyond my ken, as it does currently read a bit like a college essay that someone has bombarded with as many sources as they can find in order to get a good mark. JMWt (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @JMWt I would point you to the Individual action on climate change as the mental model for what we could do -- however, the articles that @Juneblay points too are working far better at this point in covering the topic. I think the challenge is that the article is more of a "how to" rather than a "reflection on the landscape of what we know", which is where the Individual action article is better. Sadads (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear what you are saying here. For one thing, clearly there are sustainability challenges which are not directly about climate change. Arguably there are multiple Planetary boundaries, each of which have individual lifestyle changes attached. It strikes me that there is a distinct topic on individual changes (such as changing household cleaning products) verses wider sustainability changes (changing infrastructure in sewage treatment works) which have a different conceptual paradigm to the pages suggested above. There's certainly a literature which discusses the value of these collectivised individual activities. I really don't understand why you are so keen to !delete. JMWt (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So my point, is that we could make an article titled "Sustainable lifestyle" or "Individual actions for sustainability" but it repeats what is covered in the other articles -- I think part of the problem, is that this article has had 4 cycles of students on it according to the talk page, all interpreting the concept's scope quite differently. I don't think the article title, or the current structure sets anyone up for success in contributing, Sadads (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well we are mostly here considering notability, and given that there is inarguably a scientific literature directly talking about the title of the page - a point you don't seem to be disagreeing with - your !delete rationale seems to me to be weak. JMWt (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no scientific literature dealing with the title: its an invented neologism, that the contributors have interpreted to describe many different other things..... which is what I have been saying.Sadads (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are papers which use the title of this page to discuss the topic. There are some already on the page, there are others I have found. The topic is also covered by other published papers. If it is invented, it isn't invented by anyone who edited this page, as far as I can tell. JMWt (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – not a neologism because it is used in many scientific papers – The Yennefer (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am very confused where you see the papers, in Google scholar, there are less than 200 casual mentions of the term, very few articles have it in a title or as a major theme in the. The current paper cites dozens of articles that have no mention of the concept or a framework like microsustainability, Sadads (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So, lots of discussion but no consensus here. Some arguing for a Redirection or Merge (but no agreement on the target article) and other editors advocating that we Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Term is used widely in books and journals on the topic of sustainability to the point that it is routine practice. We could provide hundreds of examples just in google scholar and google books. Clearly not a WP:Neologism which by our definition is a term with "little or no usage" (FYI to the nominator, that typically means just a handful of uses in WP:RS. We are way beyond that.) Here is just one example of a journal article specifically on micro-sustainability so the assertion that it isn't ever a primary topic is false. Additionally, there are many journal articles, suchas this one, that use the term in the abstract of their papers identifying the term as a key topic in the paper. Undoubtedly there are SYNTH issues in our article, but the quality of the literature is such that sorting that out through normal editing would be possible. I can't see this topic failing WP:GNG. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I offer no opinion on notability as such, but these examples are very questionable. The McGill Energy Journal is a student publication, and the abstract from the real journal uses the term in quote marks which doesn't exactly show that it isn't a neologism. You mention other papers so perhaps there are some better examples you would be able to give?--RL0919 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Here is one better example [33]. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is clearly sourcing out there, but an article being poorly or substandard written isn't a reason to punt it. Agree with above; someone with time and energy could easily build out at least a modest stub here with demonstrated notability of the concept. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cham Wings Airlines Flight 781

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

Article covering an incident where a scheduled airline departed the runway at Muscat International Airport after landing. No injuries or substantial damage to the aircraft. The subject does not meet WP:NEVENT standards requiring lasting significant coverage in reliable sources, and no lasting impact or changes to procedures have been identified.

I originally redirected this article to Muscat International Airport#Accidents and incidents as a WP:ATD, however the creator reverted the change. After further reviewing the sourcing though, I don't think this incident even meets the mark for inclusion in the airport page. nf utvol (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Oman, and Syria. nf utvol (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 12:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I would like to avoid deletion by redirecting to Muscat International Airport#Accidents and incidents Yousuf31 (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would normally say redirect as an WP:ATD, but it is so unremarkable that surely it will be removed at target article, and the redirect would end up on RFD. Protoeus (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely unremarkable incident, that we don't cover per NEVENT. I know of at least 3 runway excursions at my home airport that aren't even mentioned in its article for the same reason LightlySeared (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable event. This happens hundreds of times a year. –DMartin 22:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not meeting WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even remotely close to being notable. Zaptain United (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable event of aircraft running off the runway. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roland, Indiana

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

For once even Baker describes this as the short-lived post office it apparently was, named after the postmaster as is common. There's nothing here, and we have held these late pre-RFD post offices as non-notable for a very long time. Mangoe (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. That is, no consensus between merge and keep; there is clearly no interest in deletion. Sandstein 05:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI bubble

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

Tried Draft:AI bubble, but it was rejected as some duplicate of AI winter or whatever (oldid). I fail to see how the recently made article is any better than the now-deleted draft and how it's not some duplicate or derivative of AI winter. George Ho (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Technology. George Ho (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's a duplicate of AI winter because that article is about a drop in funding and interest in AI, whereas AI bubble is about a large increase in funding. An AI winter would occur only after a bubble burst. ―Panamitsu (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to AI boom (despite the seeming grudge-based nature of this AfD). I don't think it's redundant with AI winter because that is about general cycles in artificial intelligence, whereas this is specifically about 2020s generative AI. But having a separate article for a bubble that has yet to burst seems WP:TOOSOON. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the seeming grudge-based nature: "grudge-based"? How have I held a grudge against this topic or the article? I didn't think that this article would be created recently, honestly. George Ho (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the recently made article is any better than the now-deleted draft -- Unless I'm missing something I'm not sure how your unrelated draft has anything to do with this article. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created a draft, citing reliable sources, trying to contest the so-called "AI boom", but it was rejected. As I figured, trying to prey the draft up still isn't worth another rejection. If that's unconvincing, shall I ping the one who rejected my draft then? George Ho (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I really meant, I just now requested un-deleting the draft I made... just in past revisions, i.e. for historical use. George Ho (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the first draft I was referring to (old ID). Any similarities and differences so far? George Ho (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD isn't the right place for this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? You said my draft is unrelated and doesn't have anything to do with this article, so I showed you the contrary. George Ho (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not the place to discuss drafts, and this AfD is not about your draft. It is the place to discuss whether an existing article in article space should be deleted, and so the article under discussion is the existing AI bubble article, not your draft. I don't know how to put this any more clearly. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well cited with a lot of independent sources. Don't see how this is redundant to AI winter at all. Both the Cryptocurrency bubble and Dot-com bubble have pages. –DMartin 22:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to AI boom, as WP:TOOSOON. Unlike the crypto and dot-com bubbles, this one hasn't burst (yet) so we can't properly say it's a bubble, WP:CRYSTAL references notwithstanding. No prejudice against re-creation when the bubble is proven to be just that. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many reliable sources exist such as Fox News and nbc and the New York Times 2600:4040:2821:D500:CCC7:26A9:B84B:E228 (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I specifically made the redirect (now moved to Draft:AI bubble) becuase of WP:FUTURE, Wikipedia should not have speculative articles about things that people suspect are happening. I added "With possibilities" merely becuase if it ends up bursting it should become an article. But as of now, an article about a speculative bubble is not appropriate.

KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to me there's enough coverage for this subject. As WP:CRYSTAL states, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.". Sophocrat (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sophocrat Mikeycdiamond (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Kasparek

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

Primary contributor/creator (with Logologist being an older account of Nihil novi) has self-identified on Wikipedia as someone who is related to the subject of this article (see this diff, book can be found on Internet Archive where the name can be confirmed).

Undisclosed COI aside, sourcing is really poor throughout. The parts of the article that contain references are mostly sourced from the subject’s own works (including memoirs which are not published anywhere, as far as I can ascertain) and a “Who’s Who” book which I would think best to extend caution on given the integrity of these genres of book as raised by MediaKyle at the AfD for Kasparek’s relative.

I’ve also had to remove material from the article which was cited to another source because it failed verification – it most likely employed some degree of original research. I imagine much of the other unsourced material is also OR.

I can find a couple of instances where Kasparek’s work has been cited in the occasional journal article and a single question/statement to the editors of the NY Book Review hosted on their website but no significant and reliable coverage regarding him. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Law, Military, Politics, Czech Republic, Ukraine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not WikiTree, and we do not host vanity articles for family members of editors. I agree with ToeSchmoker's assessment - like the other Kasparek, there is practically nothing here with the exception of Who's Who in Polish America, which is more than likely not GNG-worthy, and certainly cannot be the entire basis of an article. The remaining sources are Kasparek's own books and translations, without any actual coverage - not even a newspaper clipping to speak of. MediaKyle (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siwakorn Muanseelao

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

Like Korkrirk Petchkongthong, this fails GNG. Was even created with the BLP unsourced tag! Geschichte (talk) 06:37, 26 August 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 August 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's an introduction video and a Facebook post, which are not independent as they're published by the clubs he played and coached for. Also, he spells his name Siwakorn Mueanseelao, so the page should be moved there if kept. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the lack of good sources in this WP:BLP requires deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails on WP:BASICSPORT as a non-notable footballer. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corrine Almeida

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

Fails the Wikipedia notability guidelines for academics and the sources fail the general notability guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Africa. jolielover♥talk 10:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. While I like the page -- facts stated and no peacock -- I cannot find enough here, in her publications or via a search to justify a pass of WP:NPROF; if she had a senior award or two I would change my mind. I also do not see WP:SIGCOV for a WP:GNG pass. (Having the same name as a famous singer does not help.)Ldm1954 (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see that her work is important, and there are some reliable sources, but I'm still unclear about her passing either PROF or GNG. We could use more input. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Dan Ingalls. Seems to be the most widely acceptable outcome, and easy to implement because the article is all of two sentences long. Sandstein 05:50, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrik (software)

AfDs for this article:

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

The article consists of only two lines that states that it is a programming language, some names of former users, and provides no indication of why it is notable. It also lacks much in the way of meaningful coverage and was previously nominated for deletion around 15 years ago (and seen little revision since then). Packerfan386beer here 06:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has already been to AFD in the past and so is not eligible for a Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Dan Ingalls: While not hugely influential itself it seems to have gotten interest in the 1990s. It is mentioned in the first book about OOP, and at this 1997 conference on Object oriented languages. this and this are both written by the creator and can help provide more details (the second one is published so a bit better of a source). Moritoriko (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Sam Konstas. Others are welcome to add the appropriate hatnotes. Owen× ☎ 15:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Konstas

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

Only one with a stand alone article. Redirect to Sam Konstas per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, Disambiguations, Greece, and Australia. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD process is not a great place for primary topic discussions, WP:RM should be used instead, because a name index can still remain even if one topic is chosen as primary (maybe there are other entries that just aren't documented there yet).

The other Konstas entry seems to match the guideline on items without standalone articles. It links to a player at an Olympic event, so there is some obvious potential.

The proposed primary topic is a twenty year-old player who seems to have participated at the under-19 level. Why would the average English reader strongly associate this name with this person?

A Google Books search for the term shows me nothing in particular, a lot of ambiguity.

It seems more likely that the average reader wouldn't recognize this term at all. Short-circuiting to one person instead of presenting this short list doesn't seem to be particularly beneficial. (Keep) --Joy (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale is The proposed primary topic is a twenty year-old player who seems to have participated at the under-19 level.. Quick fact check; Sam Konstas has played Test Cricket at the Senior Level. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I skimmed the article and apparently missed that. Maybe this information would be obvious to someone who is more in-universe in this regard, but this is a general encyclopedia, not a secondary source on cricket, or any other sport, or any other field of endeavor. --Joy (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joy I get what you are saying, but I don't think citing google books is a good example as many authors of books won't be notable. I also understand that this is a general encyclopaedia. I still stand by my argument that Sam is the primary topic. He's not Messi, Ronaldo or Michael Jordan type notable. Not even as notable as someone like Sam Kerr. But Sam Konstas before his Test debut got was considered an exciting prospect and arguably got the most attention of anyone on the Boxing Day Test. The other is a water polo player who played at the 1972 Olympics. Basically I would argue he was just considered a part of an Olympic squad. Don't think he was notable for anything besides being there. Sam on the other hand got a lot of attention for playing Un Orthodox shots. It's a good rationale but I am still convinced Sam is the primary topic. Also with regards to books, books on stuff like war are going to have the names of many non notable people in a war. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should be looking for indicators of significance, such as for example some relevant biographer's secondary source about this person. It's hard to expect for this to exist at such a young age, and likewise it's hard to expect that the average reader associates this surname with this person.

How do we normally measure attention in this topic area, and how does that compare to worldwide general measurements of the same? I don't know.

Google Trends for the search terms show two spikes of interest, both of which are past now, and interest is miniscule now.

That website also showed me the topic of Giorgos Konstas, which we don't have documented here, but it's plausible that we could.[34]

I see evidence that in recent times people have looked up the the surname probably in reference to this one person, but no real evidence that this is an actual primary topic according to the guideline. --Joy (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and withdrawn: agree per Joy. I think you should nominate this on WP:RM. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to let @Joy and @Royiswariii know that you might want to consider changing your vote as an RM would not work, because if a disambiguation page was created, it would be a case of WP:ONEOTHER in which it redirects to one, and only one other person has the surname. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the entire rationale that I posted. The procedural issue isn't really the most relevant part, even if it's listed first. --Joy (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's still not clear to me what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to failing notability criteria as a surname page. Then it can be redirected as a primary redirect if necessary. The argument put forth by Joy is only relevant if this page is notable, which it clearly is not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm a minor anthroponymy index might not be (obviously) notable according to the WP:N article guideline, but that guideline isn't meant to apply to it because it's not a regular article. WP:5P1 says Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. which is why we include these sorts of indices even if they're not articles. --Joy (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A set index article is a form of list, which falls under list-based notability criteria. Something violating that would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I am unaware of a policy where set index pages are an exception to that rule, and 5P1 can simply mean that infoboxes contain almanac-like or gazette-like information alongside the article itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not really just a form of a list. Have you ever seen WP:Set index#Common selection criteria? The concept of it being a list of notable items has been documented there since 2019 (probably, that's from my quick search, could be older).

The idea of these sorts of set indexes often being very similar to disambiguation pages, hence not necessarily just list articles, has likewise been discussed at length, e.g. at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment/Archive 9#Request for comment in 2024 but we didn't reach a clear conclusion on what to do. --Joy (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seemed to have its fair share of people arguing essentially the same thing that I am - that a set index article requires context and therefore notability (i.e. something like Herman (name)). While it can certainly be a list of names, The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list. In the absence of consensus, it reverts to the status quo, which is that name lists are not a form of disambiguation. It would need people to agree that they are, which didn't happen. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We habitually add name lists into disambiguation pages, this is long documented in the WP:D guideline and there is no missing consensus there. The formatting changes to make this Konstas set index a disambiguation page are trivial. --Joy (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I disagree with the idea that just because we didn't reach a coherent, strictly expressed consensus about the matter of navigation pages in that discussion, that we should just toss all that into the wind. That would truly be dismissive of the volunteer time invested in it, and it would be suspiciously close to WP:Status quo stonewalling. We never had a coherent, strictly expressed consensus about a bunch of things expressed e.g. in the WP:D guideline text (that's the one I've investigated the most so I say this with a bit of experience), and yet we generally recognize most of it as applicable. --Joy (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do we list people in the credits on disambiguation pages and redirect those entries to the corresponding film/game etc. article? No. Logoshimpo (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really worth having this in the encyclopedia. Surnames should normally not be redirects, not being a natural search term for most people. Geschichte (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least redirect (if not keep) Independent of whether a redirect like Dimitrios KonstasDimitrios Konstas should be an entry on a namelist page, this should at a minimum be a redirect to Sam Konstas, in line with {{R from surname}}.—Bagumba (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Meldrum

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

Fails WP:ACTOR. Only 1 significant role in The Saddle Club. Other aspects of career like a dog walker don't add to notability. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have tended to delete child actors' articles absent clear evidence of significant coverage, which I don't see here. As a WP:BLP, we must delete them when they're poorly sourced. If you can identify a target, a redirect would work. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Rowing at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Women's quadruple sculls. Any interested editor can feel free to add a relevant navigational hatnote at the target as desired. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michaela Burešová-Loukotová

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Her biggest achievement is 6th place at 1992 Summer Olympics in Women's quadruple sculls. She does not even have a page on cswiki. FromCzech (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rowing at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Women's quadruple sculls, where her name is mentioned. Even if there was corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia, notability still might be concerns there too. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have two promising leads for in-depth newspaper coverage, but nothing solid yet. Reversing the order of her hyphenated name is getting more success. – Ike Lek (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rowing at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Women's quadruple sculls per WP:ATD. If adequate sources come to light the article can always be restored. Ingratis (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don’t agree with the nominator that “Her biggest achievement is 6th place at 1992 Summer Olympics”. According to the International World Rowing Federation she was the 1990 world champion and finished in fourth place in 1989. There are multipe more achievements not mentioned in the article. She already did international rowing as a junior from 1984 being a medalist in 1985. Also She does not even have a page on cswiki is not a valid reason for deletion. cswiki is way from complete and perfect. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any redirect target should also include a hat note to the other Olympic participation, as otherwise readers will lose information from it. Let'srun (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rowing at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Women's quadruple sculls.4meter4 (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the Presses (BoJack Horseman)

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

An article that barely has any information on it and is clearly a lost cause. I’ve looked into it so see if I could save the article, and no information could be found minus some reviews. The article, even if all available information is put into it, is not notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion Crystal Drawers (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Episode won the Writers Guild of America Award for Television: Animation. The three sources already in the article demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. The article is also not in bad shape at present. It's a suitable amount of coverage for the topic area.4meter4 (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 12:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep SIGCOV reviews from The AV Club and Vulture, a fairly boring review from Collider although its not unusable, same with this from Slant. I think the WGA award may push it over the line. Olliefant (she/her) 16:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – current reviews are sufficient for meeting GNG. This review could also be added (it covers the whole season, but it gives each episode its own coverage). In the worst case, it should be redirected, not deleted. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Luci4. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bodypartz

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

Fails WP:NSONG; no notability aside from a passing mention in a Pitchfork article. Should be redirected to Luci4. Unregistered Biohazard! 03:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Unregistered Biohazard! 03:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luci4.4meter4 (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Unregistered Biohazard! 21:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Miss Earth India#Titleholders. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanshika Parmar

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and ENT. Sources are mostly routine about winning a beauty pageant. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Himachal Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- She holds a notable national title (Miss Earth India 2022)
- She's the first from her state to win this title Mansi Chourasiya won the title of Miss Global India 2022 & Vanshika Parmar crowned as Miss Earth India 2022 - Hindustan Bytes | Latest News India, Punjab, World | Crime News | Political News | Entertainment News
- She received additional recognition with "Beauty with a Responsibility" award Miss Divine Beauty - Wikipedia
- She represents India internationally at Miss Earth pageant
- Coverage in reliable regional and national media
Ssrseven (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Earth India 2022 is not an official national pageant. It was a promotional, sponsor-driven event, not a recognized competition. The subject paid to participate, and the coverage is entirely from sponsored or affiliated sources. These do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliable, independent references. Using these as justification to keep the page is not valid under notability guidelines. This article is clearly a paid creation, with no significant independent coverage to establish lasting notability. 2402:E280:411C:16B:D46A:AD8C:4064:C27E (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Tribune reference being cited here is not independent coverage. The piece is paid content, written by a contributor with no established bylines or editorial oversight, which falls short of Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sourcing. It also lacks basic EEAT elements (expertise, author credibility, editorial accountability), making it equivalent to promotional material rather than genuine reporting. Proof of this is visible here:

Author profile: https://ibb.co/399YTppc

Article: https://ibb.co/WvJfG4X7

Given that, the source cannot be considered valid evidence of notability. Combined with the other sponsored references, the article fails to meet WP:GNG and should be deleted as non-notable and promotional. 2402:E280:411C:16B:D46A:AD8C:4064:C27E (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Beauty pageants, Ghana, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Earth India#Titleholders – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Earth India#Titleholders, also per WP:ATD-R. AstrooKai (Talk) 13:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Reclosed as "delete" after my earlier "no consensus" closure (see User talk:Ardenssedvirens#No consensus result of AfD process, permalink). Sandstein 12:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Kirkpatrick

The subject of the article is a former Professor of Church History in Union Theological College, the small seminary for the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, based in Belfast, northern Ireland.

He does not meet the notability criteria for an academic WP:NACADEMIC:

there is no evidence that his research has had a significant impact in the discipline of Church History, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
He has not received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
He has not been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association.
There is no evidence that his academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
He has not held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research or a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement.
He briefly held the post of Principal at Union Theological College, but this is a small seminary, not a major academic institution.
There is no evidence that he has had a substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity.
He has not been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in his subject area.

Reliable sources him only in the context of a single event. WP:BLP1E When he was sacked from his position as Professor of Church History in 2018 there was widespread press coverage of his sacking, subsequent employment tribunal and eventual settlement, but other than that he is a low-profile individual. The event is covered in the history of the college in its article, [35] but is not significant enough to merit an article of its own.

The article was first created in 2023, well after the professor had been sacked and was no longer academically active. [36] It was created by a confirmed sockpuppet who spent a lot of time making edits related to the sacking of the professor.

In summary, the subject was not regarded as notable during his academic career and the article was only created in response to a single event in the news. He is not a notable subject. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)}}[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Northern Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - I suspect the OP is correct that the notability standards have not been met per NACADEMIC, but it seems to me it is possible that he has a certain notability as a religious leader and commentator. Also possible he doesn't, but that doesn't seem to be explored in the nom. JMWt (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @JMWt, those are helpful categories to raise.
I've had a look to see whether he pops up as a commentator or not. In Northern Ireland the main opportunities for that would be the two national daily newspapers, the Belfast Telegraph and the Newsletter; two religious programmes on BBC Radio Ulster, Sunday Sequence and Thought for the Day; and the political blog Slugger O'Toole which sometimes touches on church and religion.
- I can't find any articles by him in the Belfast Telegraph. [37]
- I can't find any articles by him in the Newsletter. [38]
- He was a panelist on Sunday Sequence just twice, in March 2023 [39] and in March 2025 [40]. [41] That isn't a noteworthy number.
- He was a contributor to Thought for the Day three times in April 2025. [42] That isn't a noteworthy number.
- He doesn't seem to have written for Slugger O'Toole and only comes up once in a Google search. [43]
As far as being a leader, I'm not aware of him leading any movements. He's been invited to speak at some public events, but I'm not aware of any of them being influential or notable and it's the sort of thing plenty of people get invited to do who aren't noteworthy enough to appear on Wikipedia.
As far as I'm aware the thing he's probably best known for in Irish Presbyterian circles is writing a large coffee table style illustrated history of the Presbyterian Church. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that enough for WP:NAUTHOR? Elemimele (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may be of interest to note here a curious disparity between the way that Ardenssedvirens has nominated this article for deletion, for which the notability of the subject has never hitherto been questioned as far as I can discern, versus the article on Martyn C. Cowan, for which the notability of the subject seems to have been questioned from the outset. This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, whereas the article on Martyn C. Cowan is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. I am not suggesting that either article should be deleted but I would be interested in hearing why Ardenssedvirens is so interested in removing this article and yet had become so intensely engaged in a discussion regarding the mere addition of tags to the article on Martyn C. Cowan. Notably, the latter was also recently edited by a long-established user called Jdcooper, self-described as mainly focusing on the worst articles on Wikipedia. Nonavian (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nonavian and welcome to the discussion. There's helpful advice on how to contribute here: WP:DISCUSSAFD that will help you to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. If you want to discuss me personally this probably isn't the place to do it. If you want to discuss another article can I suggest doing on on the Talk page for the article or starting an AFD yourself for that article. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered my questions regarding consistency of criteria for deletion of articles, which is entirely on topic. I am now curious to know why the mere mention of Martyn C. Cowan in this context is something you should take so personally. Nonavian (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is this relevant to the active discussion? TheBritinator (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Elemimele, that’s helpful. I hadn’t considered that angle. It looks like there are four possible criteria to be a notable author. Criterion 3 looks like the potentially applicable one here:

‘The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);’

So I guess the question is whether Lawrence’s illustrated history of Presbyterianism is regarded as significant or well known, and been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. As far as I’m aware there aren’t any books, films or TV series about it!
I did a Google search for ‘review “Laurence Kirkpatrick” “Presbyterians in Ireland” an illustrated history’. Apart from reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, I only found one review, in ‘Seanchas Ardmhacha: Journal of the Armagh Diocesan Historical Society’ [44].

A search on JSTOR for the book showed just this one review.

A further search on JSTOR for anything with Laurence Kirkpatrick turned up two articles: the aforementioned review and a review by Kirkpatrick of another book.

I also checked the Presbyterian Historical Society. There didn’t appear to be any reviews. Kirkpatrick contributed two articles to their periodical — one in 2008 and another in 2015. But his own work doesn’t seem to have been reviewed.

Returning to the criterion above, the book doesn’t appear to meet the requirement that the ‘work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews’ and therefore doesn’t seem to meet the criteria to be a notable author. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NAUTHOR is always worth checking for academics, especially those in non-science disciplines, but I concur that this doesn't look like an NAUTHOR pass. Typically NAUTHOR requires multiple notable books (otherwise we can just have a book article and cover the author as "background"), and with only one review it doesn't look like even his one book passes WP:NBOOK. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - edits by a sock puppet can be cured with edits by uninvolved users, but lack of significant coverage is fatal. I'm not opposed to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being sacked for publicly disagreeing with his church's hard line on homosexuality (and the ensuing media and legal fallout) has given him a general notability that he might not have specifically as an academic or an author. Focusing on those rather than on the general notability seems a little disingenuous. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t being disingenuous. I specifically mentioned that, said it was the one thing he’d be known for, and linked to WP:BLP1E to make it easier for other people to consider the criteria themselves.

Calling someone disingenuous doesn’t seem very civil and idoesn’t contribute constructively. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for any offence, but feel I should point out that I haven't called anybody anything: I have communicated the impression made on me by actions, quite independently of persons or their qualities. You did indeed refer to BLP1E, but I'm not convinced this meets the spirit of that rule. This is a public figure whose main claim to fame (or notoriety) arose due to remarks he made while ~~being interviewed~~ speaking as an expert in his field on the BBC and has generated media coverage over a seven-year period, some (e.g.) exclusively reporting on his own subsequent thoughts and actions. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said ‘Focusing on those rather than on the general notability seems a little disingenuous.’ I don’t know how you can say that and then claim you didn’t call me anything. That seems disingenuous.

Most of the media coverage was in 2018/19 when he was fired and took the church to ab employment tribunal. There has been a bit of coverage since then, but it’s mostly been to say that the tribunal is expected to meet soon and then later than there had been a settlement.

The event is already covered by the Union Theological College article. The Kirkpatrick article doesn’t really add much, if anything. I’m not sure it adds any value having it as a separate article rather than delete and redirect. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we focus on Kirkpatrick please and less on editors' perceived motives?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the key premises for deletion as described above is that the notoriety of the professor’s dismissal is already covered by the article on Union Theological College but the talk page for that article has comments by that editor indicating that they resent positive descriptions of the professor. 195.99.165.202 (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to the AFD discussion. I’m not sure if you’ve confused me with someone else, but I have never said that I resent positive descriptions of the professor. Can I suggest you read the guides at the top of this page. They have plenty of helpful advice on how to contribute constructively. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be just about enough coverage over an extended period of time to justify the article e.g. 1 2 3. Cortador (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like WP:BLP1E, and neither NACADEMIC nor NAUTHOR applies. I don't think the links Cortador points to constitute coverage over an extended period of time; rather, it looks to me that the event (his firing) occurred over an extended period of time. There doesn't appear to be any retrospective coverage after the affair concluded which would give the event some broader significance. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability.Gedaali (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuna Nakagai

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

Declined PROD. WE League player with only four appearances. Even ja.wiki lacks coverage, and the sources provided are just trivial mentions about transfers and a festive game. Svartner (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Japan. Svartner (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of career and coverage. Geschichte (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not finding the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG, either here or elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails on WP:BASICSPORT as a non-notable footballer. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clerence Chyntia Audry

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

Fails GNG and WP:NACTRESS Ckfasdf (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. jolielover♥talk 02:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No notable roles so fails WP:NACTRESS. She was married to the drummer for Noah, a popular band in Indonesia. The media coverage of her death didn't even mention she was an actress. It was entirely focused on her connection to him and his reaction to her death. 4meter4 (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 🅷🅴🅽🆁🅸 ^{(Let's talk)} ✉ 02:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails on WP:NACTRESS, her cancer added to her story, but does not make her notable enough. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Early_closure: no valid deletion rationale given, and no support provided to delete. UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World War 3 (video game)

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

Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Reason for nomination — Notability / Undue reliance on a single non-authoritative source.

This article fails Wikipedia’s sourcing and notability standards for video games. The body of the article relies almost entirely on two articles from TheGamer and on primary sources (the game’s official website and Steam store pages), rather than on significant, independent, reliable secondary coverage. Reliance on a single online outlet for nearly all independent commentary produces undue weight and does not demonstrate the independent significant coverage required by WP:NOTABILITY or by the WikiProject Video Games sourcing guidelines. The article's references also mainly feature the game's official site, Steam store pages, and developer/Steam community posts; these are self-published/primary sources that cannot establish notability. Independent coverage via multiple reliable sources is minimal. The article further contains promotional phrasing derived from the subject's own materials.

1. Heavy dependence on TheGamer. The article’s references show that the majority of independent-appearing coverage is from TheGamer (see refs 2 and 3 on the article). Other cited items are the game’s official site and the Steam store — both primary/self-published sources that cannot by themselves establish notability. This sourcing pattern leaves only a single clearly independent outlet (PC Gamer), which is insufficient to demonstrate broad, significant coverage.

2. Contravenes WP:VG/Sources and WP:Reliable_sources. WikiProject Video Games emphasises that articles require reliable, independent sources and warns editors about overreliance on low-quality or situational web outlets; if a source is not listed as an acceptable reliable site or is the subject of discussion on the project talk page, editors should treat it cautiously. Likewise, the general WP:Reliable_sources policy requires independent, reputable coverage to establish notability; if reliable sources cannot be found, an article generally should not exist. The present article’s citations do not meet those thresholds.

3. Primary / self-published sources predominate. The article uses the game’s own website and the Steam store to source numerous factual claims; Wikipedia guidance on primary sources states such material may be used sparingly for uncontroversial facts (release dates, version numbers), but may not be used to demonstrate notability or to provide the independent analysis an encyclopaedia requires. This page appears to rely on primary sources for much of its content.

Net effect — notability and undue weight. Under WP:NOTABILITY (and the WP:VG guidance), significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required to retain a standalone article. A single outlet plus primary sources normally does not meet that bar; the article therefore appears to be a candidate for deletion on notability/RS grounds.

Fails WP:NOTABILITY (video games) - no significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources; the references are primarily self-published or from a single commercial outlet.

Fails WP:RS - article depends on self-published and marginal web sources rather than reliable independent sources required for verification.

Fails WP:OR - the article appears to synthesise conclusions from primary materials without independent sourcing, which constitutes original research.

Contravenes WP:VG/Sources - overreliance on a single gaming outlet and primary sources rather than the multiple high-quality independent sources the project expects.

Fails WP:PRIMARY - too many substantive claims are sourced only to the game's own materials (official site/ Steam), which cannot establish encyclopaedic significance.

Fails WP:V - numerous statements lack verification in independent, reliable sources.

WP:UNDUE - the article assigns undue weight to promotional material and a single source rather than balanced, independent coverage.

Fails WP:NPOV / WP:ADVERTISING - the article contains promotional phrasing from the subject and lacks neutral, third-party analysis.

29hs928h3 (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I weeded out the primary sources. Some fact checking to the references that remain are needed. Some more content may need to be trimmed. There does appear to be three solid by-lined articles on the game. It might pass WP:SIGCOV if those sources are considered reliable and independent. Gaming isn't my area so I hesitate to give a concrete vote. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. Significant coverage from PCGamer, Significant coverage from Multiplayer.it, Significant coverage from Rock Paper Shotgun, Significant coverage from Polygon means that it clearly meets WP:GNG. Deletion is not cleanup, as the current problems are WP:SURMOUNTABLE and not grounds for removal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Speedy Delete this nomination per WP:G15. The nomination rational is likely AI generated. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 06:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We now have other comments by non AI generated editors so I think that ship may have sailed. Someone should talk to the nominator on their talk page though about the use of large language models on wikipedia.4meter4 (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NHL team colors and logos

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

Seems to fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY, essentially duplicating content of the #Logos section of the respective articles. And the use of 30 non-free files seems to violate WP:NFCC8 ----Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Lists. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks a lot like WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's WP:LISTCRUFT.4meter4 (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 02:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a blatant violation of WP:NFCC8, and complete failure of WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRUFT. There are no independent reliable sources which justify having all NHL logo and colour changes in one list. Sportslogos.net and Sportslogohistory.com are fan sites which are not encyclopedic in purpose. Sources from the teams or league are not independent. Sources from The Hockey Writers are independent, but do not discuss the list as a whole and do not justify LISTN. Flibirigit (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Should be kept to other articles, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of images or media files. Maybe soft redirect toc:Category:Logos of National Hockey League teams. –DMartin 22:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else and WP:NOTGALLERY. Conyo14 (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE just a catalog of logos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalaraz (talk • contribs) 02:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 01:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just cruft. Maybe could be merged somewhere else. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Liechtenstein people by net worth

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:NLIST. PROD was contested without any rationale in line with guidelines so taking this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Liechtenstein. Let'srun (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't need a one-item list article. This list also glaringly omits Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein. (Hans-Adam is a savvy multibillionaire who parlayed his moderate inheritance into a very large global portfolio especially in agriculture.) --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as written per WP:TNT. But... there is coverage of this topic such as [45]. It's possible this could pass WP:NLIST so no prejudice against recreation if someone comes along with sources and has multiple entries in said list.4meter4 (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – List with a single subject. Svartner (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barren list. The networth of indviduals in Liechtenstein aren't typically subject to coverage. TheBritinator (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST and should be deleted as is. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [46] and Category:Lists of people by wealth indicates WP:NLIST. WP:TNT arguments are not persuasive; it's a one-entry list, nothing needs to be deleted to improve the list. ~Kvng (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saint Kitts and Nevis people by net worth

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:NLIST. PROD was contested without any rationale in line with guidelines so taking this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – List with a single subject. Svartner (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Economics, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - deprodding was a huge waste of time. Geschichte (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added more names to the list. To broaden the debate I wonder how many billionaires there are in the Caribbean more generally. Moondragon21 (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List with 3 names as of now. Even by widening the scope to the caribbean region, there is a page in List of Latin Americans by net worth, so that too would be redundant.Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST and any reason for a list to pass notability on its own. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition of Higher Education Students in Scotland

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

Declined prod. Nothing in google news. 2 small hits each in google books and scholar. Fails WP:ORG, LibStar (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is coverage in the following articles [47], [48], and [49]. There are some passing mentions in [50], [51], [52]. As a student union this would be a nonprofit, and as a coalition of students it is also education related. The coverage in sourcing includes sources from outside Scotland and is not just local but national so appears to pass WP:NONPROFIT. Note that I did not do archive searches in Scottish/UK newspapers or search in newspapers.com so there may be more materials. 4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, additional newspaper sources can be found via the Wikipedia Library, such as this article and this article on CHESS's founding in the Herald, and this one in the Scotsman. — LittleDwangs (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The added sources should be added to the article, but it does appear to pass WP:GNG then. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kuk-fan

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

As it stands, this subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The only reference is a database, and all I could find elsewhere was a mention at [[53]]. Let'srun (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Wrestling, and South Korea. Let'srun (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – Plenty of SIGCOV. I'll try to AGF and assume you just had some trouble with the name when doing your BEFORE. Some sources do transliterate his name weirdly. Here's an abstract to a article about him [54]. This talks a bit about him as a coach [55], and a little bit more here [56]. There's probably tons more in the sources of the first article, but I can't read Korean, so Korean newspaper databases would be quite difficult for me. – Ike Lek (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found from the korean source that he actually exist. https://gsic.sports.or.kr/com/cop/game/player_info.do?gameCode=14 Also he seems to be covered in other korean resarch material as well as one of the figures that were part of the first generation of wrestlers in south korea.https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE10862222 Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:SPORTSBASIC based on the scholarly materials given above. It's not often a wrestler is the primary subject of an academic journal article. Nice find. Other sources look like WP:SIGCOV as well.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Clear consensus against this article as currently defined. A list of notable ebay listings would likely be handled differently but that idea did not receive much attention. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual eBay listings

AfDs for this article:

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

Highly subjective arbitrary list. --Altenmann >talk 00:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid WP:SPINOUT per the ~~WP:CONSENSUS~~ argument at the first AFD.4meter4 (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the first AFD was closed as "no consensus". And a "valid spinout" is a fair game for deletion. We deleted plenty of fancruft and "in popculture" pages after spinout of garbage. --Altenmann >talk 01:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann I get it. WP:LISTCRUFT is real. But in this case we have the topic discussed as a group or set in reliable sources so passing WP:NLIST would be possible. For example see this article in The Independent and this article in Time. In fact I'm just going to say keep per WP:NLIST because the sourcing is there to meet our guideline for lists.4meter4 (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think "Top 10"-type attention-grabber articles (which, again, a highly subjective cherry-picking) make the subject notable. There is no objective criterion for an item to be "unusual" and the topic was not "discussed as a group" in any reasonable encyclopedic depth. --Altenmann >talk 02:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that "unusual" is a subjective criteria. That's why we rely on WP:RS to determine what is unusual and only include entries that have coverage in independent reliable materials. The article is predominantly cited to mainstream media so I don't see how a list in this case isn't possible under our guidelines. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there are WP:RS that give a definition of "unusual listing". These cruft lists do not determine what is unusual, these are clickbait titles with arbitrary selections. and as such these are WP:UNDUE for inclusion into encyclopediaa. There are lots of such lists, like weird baby names, unusual trees, "25 Strangest Places In The World", "Unusual Women"... and what's not. I fail to see how these selections are encyclopedic. --Altenmann >talk 03:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clickbaity listicles padding out legitimate news websites do not count for WP:SIGCOV, especially given the total lack of analysis or of what makes the listings unusual. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think you could have a list of notable listings, but in these latter days it's getting hard to say that any listing on eBay is really all that unusual any more. Mangoe (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete "Unusual" doesn't cut it and there seems to be consensus against some over criterion. Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps one can create a section about this in the main article since this subject is not notable on its own. Koshuri ^(あ!) 12:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of these aren't even that interesting. People do weird stuff, but the fact that something was put on eBay isn't that significant. Never seen such a blatant list of WP:Trivia on WP. Reywas92^Talk 13:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And everyone has different opinions on what "unusual" means. jolielover♥talk 07:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that "unusual" is difficult to define reliably, but we could just change "Unusual" to "Ebay listings that received media coverage". Koopinator (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"received media coverage" is even worse highly arbitrary criterion, a WP:TRIVIA thing. Media happens to cover everything. Wikipedia is not newspaper to track what media covers all over the globe. --Altenmann >talk 18:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Hockey. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice Delévaque

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. The only reference currently is a database, and all I could find elsewhere was a mention at [[57]]. Let'srun (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. Let'srun (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Hockey – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Hockey as I always prefer a good redirect over a full on delete as a better ATD. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[Star_Tribune_1979-1] "Don Bleu 'suffers' through L.A. winter". Minneapolis Tribune. 1979-09-28. p. 3C. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.

[Malaspina_1981-2] Malaspina, Rick (1981-08-30). "Don Bleu and his lawn wait to grow up". Oakland Tribune. p. I-26. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.

[Mann_1989-3] Mann, Bill (1989-07-27). "Fired, but not Bleu". Oakland Tribune. p. C-6. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.

[Fong-Torres_1989-4] Fong-Torres, Ben (1989-07-24). "'X-100' puts DJ Don Bleu out of work". San Francisco Chronicle. p. F1. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.

[Mirabella_1988-5] Mirabella, Alan (1988-09-12). "Institutionalized comedy". New York Daily News. p. 31. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.

[Cory_1998-6] Cory, Matt (1998-01-29). "This guy's voice really carries". Grand Forks Herald. p. 1. Archived from the original on 2025-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.

[Fong-Torres_2011-7] Fong-Torres, Ben (2011-12-11). "Big changes for Don Bleu, 'Green,' KNEW". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2012-07-19.

[Bennett_2025_interview-8] Bleu, Don (2025-02-14). "The Don Bleu Interview" (Interview). Interviewed by Bennett, Michael. California Historical Radio Society. Archived from the original on 2025-03-24.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]