Wikipedia:XfD today

Speedy deletion candidates

Articles

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 01	October 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Feyli people

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

This is an article of three different ethnic groups (who happen to share the same name), and brings nothing unique, because that is unnucessary. Heck, one of the cited Iranica citations named "Feyli" ([1]) talks about the Feyli Lors, not the three groups combined. We already have Feyli Lurs and Feyli Kurds. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Iran, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George, Prince Yourievsky

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

A descendant of the Russian Emperor Alexander II, he is a private entrepreneur who rarely appears in the media. It's unclear what criteria for significance he meets. There are hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs in Europe. Wikipedia is not a database. I suggest deleting or redirecting it. RobertVikman (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Royalty and nobility, Russia, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muko-jima

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

Contested BLAR. Fails WP:NGEO, only sources are maps. WP:BEFORE gives no sources which aren't maps. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is sources other than maps. Martianmister (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then could you provide them? Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the UNESCO link? Martianmister (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it shows a map and a legend. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Japan, and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Mukojima Islands of which it is the chief. I think the list of islands in that article could be improved with a tabular listing including, say, coordinates, area, and pictures if available, but there's nothing special claimed about this one. And really, the sub list articles probably could be rolled into the main WHS article in the same manner. There just doesn't seem to be much to say about them individually. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supercritical hydrolysis

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not finding multiple independent review/secondary-level refs for this specific subtopic. What we have here is only supported by a company's patent (fails WP:RS) and is written in a somewhat promotional tone (partially a result of no independent refs for the claims of novelty, utlility, etc.) by the company's employee. DMacks (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Chemistry and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hydrothermal synthesis. The second paragraph of the thesis starts with:

"Cellulose reactions at hydrothermal conditions can proceed via the homogeneous route involving dissolution and hydrolysis or the heterogeneous path of surface hydrolysis."

Correct me if I am wrong, but this just seems to be an alternative name. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think we can merge to Hydrothermal synthesis since hydrolysis is not synthesis, and that article is mostly about something quite different (hydrothermal production of crystals in mineralogy). In fact the bolt-on bit about hydrothermal conditions being relevant to green chemistry refers to three sources none of which call it hydrothermal synthesis. Either Hydrothermal synthesis needs to be moved to a more general title, or those bits need to be removed from it. Elemimele (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. Shocksingularity (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for policy-based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Synapse X

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

After a before, I can't see this meeting WP:GNG. I've dug through every source in the article and through Google and can't find many reliable secondary sources other than [2] this TechRadar article discussing a trojan and this [3] Entertainment Focus article. Other than these two, I can only find blogs or short passing mentions of Synapse, not enough from reliable, independent secondary sources to develop sufficient notability for an article on its own. 🪷 nahida 01:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. 🪷 nahida 01:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's space for improvement, Synapse X was a very known cheat on Roblox. BirkeDK 17:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this has to be kept then why isn't there an article for Delta? It is also a very known cheat. Gabriel120YT (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (general notability guideline) Beluga732 (talk | contribs) 18:54, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given one participant has been blocked.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. There's almost nothing meeting WP:GNG anywhere in this article as I see. Gabriel120YT (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Macina

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

Fails GNG. This is all I found. This player is pretty low level. It doesn't look like the Corpus Christi Tritons even exist anymore. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, New Hampshire, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, although a team not existing is not a good reason to delete. NotJamestack (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Raleigh Latin School

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

Defunct secondary school in Raleigh that operated for four years. Not enough substantive, independent coverage. Not clear why this school would be notable. Article created by a sockpuppet. Fails WP:GNG Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and North Carolina. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Kafle

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

The subject is presented as an author and musical artist, but does not meet the notability criteria per WP:AUTHOR or WP:MUSICBIO. There are no significant independent reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage. The available references are either trivial mentions, routine listings, or self-published content. As such, the article fails WP:GNG. Notably, a same article was already deleted on Simple Wikipedia Khagendrawiki (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and Nepal. Khagendrawiki (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promise Mthembu

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

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Promise Mthembu- information on the page is personal information that has lead to harm to myself -promise as it violates my privacy and dignity. Kindly delete the whole page- entry. Apparently over several years, Mrs. Mthembu has repeatedly expressed a desire to have the article deleted. I don't think the creator of this article did anything wrong by creating the article, and they clearly made the article with the best of intentions on what they felt was a notable activist (for reference, she has an entry in the Dictionary of African Biography [4]), and the article doesn't contain any information that Mrs Mthembu hasn't publicised herself. She does seem to have gained some attention as a HIV activist in reliable sources, so the question for this AfD is whether she is notable enough that we should honour this request. I'm currently torn on the matter, possibly leaning towards weak delete. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, and South Africa. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is tough because we don't know for certain the the IP editor is the person and there appears to be news articles to cite. On the other hand, the article does collate a lot of personal information that I can understand might be distressing. I'm not sure what we should do but morally it should probably be !delete. JMWt (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merna (artist)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Lacking significant coverage of this musician. I can't find anything to support the claim that she is a Grammy nominated artist. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 16:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 16:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. jolielover♥talk 16:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Savile Park

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

No refs on the page for many years. There appears to be a poorly formatted link to a database inline with the text but it doesn't seem to work for me.

I've found a few refs which would WP:V that the ground exists and that games were played there but I'm not seeing substantive RS which show the notability criteria have been met JMWt (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and England. JMWt (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen à clef

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

Fails GNG. No result in Google Books and the few mentions of it in web search simply use it as an adjective. I cannot find any source that defines the phrase either directly or indirectly. Northern Moonlight 16:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might or might be related that the original author User:Rajpaj was indef'd for creating hoax articles. Northern Moonlight 16:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of law firms in Uganda

AfDs for this article:

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

I closed a bundled AfD containing 12 lists as they weren't similar enough and created an AfD for each. In general, these lists aren't individually notable. Specifically, I counted that ten of these 12 lists are wholly attributed to only one (or sometimes two) sources, which of course doesn't meet WP:NLIST. They are all relatively short and variously formatted. FaviFake (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Lists, and Uganda. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Five (law firms) in South Africa

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

I closed a bundled AfD containing 12 lists as they weren't similar enough and created an AfD for each. In general, these lists aren't individually notable. Specifically, I counted that ten of these 12 lists are wholly attributed to only one (or sometimes two) sources, which of course doesn't meet WP:NLIST. They are all relatively short and variously formatted. FaviFake (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and South Africa. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malayan law firms

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

I closed a bundled AfD containing 12 lists as they weren't similar enough and created an AfD for each. In general, these lists aren't individually notable. Specifically, I counted that ten of these 12 lists are wholly attributed to only one (or sometimes two) sources, which of course doesn't meet WP:NLIST. They are all relatively short and variously formatted. FaviFake (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Lists, and Malaysia. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest law firms by revenue

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

I closed a bundled AfD containing 12 lists as they weren't similar enough and created an AfD for each. In general, these lists aren't individually notable. Specifically, I counted that ten of these 12 lists are wholly attributed to only one (or sometimes two) sources, which of course doesn't meet WP:NLIST. They are all relatively short and variously formatted. FaviFake (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Lists. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest China-based law firms by revenue

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

I closed a bundled AfD containing 12 lists as they weren't similar enough and created an AfD for each. In general, these lists aren't individually notable. Specifically, I counted that ten of these 12 lists are wholly attributed to only one (or sometimes two) sources, which of course doesn't meet WP:NLIST. They are all relatively short and variously formatted. FaviFake (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Lists, and China. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest Japan-based law firms by head count

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

I closed a bundled AfD containing 12 lists as they weren't similar enough and created an AfD for each. In general, these lists aren't individually notable. Specifically, I counted that ten of these 12 lists are wholly attributed to only one (or sometimes two) sources, which of course doesn't meet WP:NLIST. They are all relatively short and variously formatted. FaviFake (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Business, and Japan. jolielover♥talk 16:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest Europe-based law firms by revenue

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

I closed a bundled AfD containing 12 lists as they weren't similar enough and created an AfD for each. In general, these lists aren't individually notable. Specifically, I counted that ten of these 12 lists are wholly attributed to only one (or sometimes two) sources, which of course doesn't meet WP:NLIST. They are all relatively short and variously formatted. FaviFake (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Business, and Europe. jolielover♥talk 16:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest Canada-based law firms by revenue

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

I closed a bundled AfD containing 12 lists as they weren't similar enough and created an AfD for each. In general, these lists aren't individually notable. Specifically, I counted that ten of these 12 lists are wholly attributed to only one (or sometimes two) sources, which of course doesn't meet WP:NLIST. They are all relatively short and variously formatted. FaviFake (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Business, and Canada. jolielover♥talk 16:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The lists don't really seem up to date, 2023? the first one starts N/A, so why is it in the list it's not applicable? Too many errors/strange decisions made, not really any indication why this list is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Economics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest United Kingdom–based law firms by revenue

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

I closed a bundled AfD containing 12 lists as they weren't similar enough and created an AfD for each. In general, these lists aren't individually notable. Specifically, I counted that ten of these 12 lists are wholly attributed to only one (or sometimes two) sources, which of course doesn't meet WP:NLIST. They are all relatively short and variously formatted. FaviFake (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Business, and United Kingdom. jolielover♥talk 16:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Economics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arda, Indiana

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

Not getting anything except hits on gazetteers, soil surveys, and first names. There's nothing much here so we need more proof this was a real town. Mangoe (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. jolielover♥talk 16:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An excerpt of the Pike County Press-Dispatch from 1 April 1999 can be found online here [5], stating

"The town can still be found on plat maps today, even though no one ever actually lived in the town. Arda was formed on June 19, 1900, by the grandchildren of Dr. John W. Posey."

It was never populated, so it doesn't meet WP:NTOWN. Redirect to Washington Township, Pike County, Indiana. Katzrockso (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest United States–based law firms by head count

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

I closed a bundled AfD containing 12 lists as they weren't similar enough and created an AfD for each. In general, these lists aren't individually notable. Specifically, I counted that ten of these 12 lists are wholly attributed to only one (or sometimes two) sources, which of course doesn't meet WP:NLIST. They are all relatively short and variously formatted. FaviFake (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest law firms by profits per partner

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

I closed a bundled AfD containing 12 lists as they weren't similar enough and created an AfD for each. In general, these lists aren't individually notable. Specifically, I counted that ten of these 12 lists are wholly attributed to only one (or sometimes two) sources, which of course doesn't meet WP:NLIST. They are all relatively short and variously formatted. FaviFake (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: List has no inline sources, so I'm unsure how true it is... One source isn't quite enough for a table of this size, and this is from 2021. Has there been no data since? Unsourced, not up to date and an unclear indication of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest United States–based law firms by profits per partner

AfDs for this article:

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

I closed a bundled AfD containing 12 lists as they weren't similar enough and created an AfD for each. In general, these lists aren't individually notable. Specifically, I counted that ten of these 12 lists are wholly attributed to only one (or sometimes two) sources, which of course doesn't meet WP:NLIST. They are all relatively short and variously formatted. FaviFake (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One source, seems rather niche for wikipedia...No context around this concept, or why it matters. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Business, and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 16:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Economics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's what establishes notability for a list article per WP:NLIST:

- The topic of the list must be notable.
- Individual list items (I'm paraphrasing):
  - Individual entries must be properly cited to reliable sources per WP:RS if not notable themselves, OR
  - Individual entries must have links to their own articles

This article, is cited to a reliable source, American Lawyer. List is bounded to notable firms only, all of which have articles. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boo (Mario franchise)

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

The article doesn't demonstrate why the character is independently notable from the games, nor does it really pass WP:GNG as the reception only contains one source; a source that is deemed unreliable per this discussion. Not to mention the addition of King Boo as a seperate subject in the article feels like a violation of WP:COAT. Additionally, this article does not take into account the consensus given on the subject article's previous incarnation here. What confuses me about this is this article was submitted to AFC and reviewed by the same person as seen here, which I believe goes against the guidelines of WP:AFCREVIEW. Captain Galaxy 15:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Captain Galaxy 15:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It still fails GNG just as in the previous discussion (and since the original page was Boo (character), deleting this one won't remove the redirect). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Character does not meet WP:GNG. I ran a quick check of the article sources when I tagged it for notability and none of them are significant coverage of the character. Not enough for an article. λ NegativeMP1 16:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. A complete GNG failure that appears to be an attempt to run around consensus. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could Boo be notable? Maybe, in a deep dive, it could be. But it's not notable based on what we know. The article created is especially concerning, due to the fact that it has even less of a show of notability than the article that was AfD'd some years back. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As before, merge into List of Mario franchise characters (ATD). Not opposed to a better-sourced version by other editors once the commitment is there. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Bengal Tigers

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

Only one of the two pages listed could be referred to as "Royal Bengal Tigers." GilaMonster536 (talk) 15:07, 2 October 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 October 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 16:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Disambiguation can be handled with a hatnote at Bengal tiger. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 19:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pasaje Del Terror

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

Non-notable ride. Google search yields no independent sources, and the only potentially independent source in the references of the articles has a dead link. Shocksingularity (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Shocksingularity (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yambo Studio

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Quite a few sources are from the company's own website, some of the sources mention the company one time, any many of the sources are random websites that are not reliable. This seems to be a promotional article. Ternera (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Companies, and Israel. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monirul Alam

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

Bangladeshi photojournalist (BLP). Sources are all brief mentions, or routine bios on the websites of organisations to which the subject belongs or has contributed, so there's nothing in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, as would be needed to satisfy WP:BASIC. Dionysodorus (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Bangladesh. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Photography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Dettweiler

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

Potential hoax. I can not find any information about him, the books he wrote, or the association he is said to have founded. RanDom 404 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Germany. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He definitely existed, I was able to easily find his entry in the German national library database [6]. However, there is no argument for notability per the GNG. Katzrockso (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Levitas (physician)

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

American medical doctor (d. 1999). There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC: only a couple of brief notices of his death, and the NYT one at least is a paid notice. Dionysodorus (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one book but that does not seem enough for WP:NAUTHOR. I don't see anything else. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Killeen

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

I believe that the subject of this article fails WP:NACTOR because while he has been involved in multiple clearly notable film and television series, his roles in these productions are relatively minor (e.g. guest stars, minor characters).

The article mentions that he plays a lead in two films, The Callback Queen and The Right Juice, but it's not clear that either of these films are actually notable (the former has some independent coverage, but I am not sure that it's clear that it meets the notability guidelines for films; the latter only seems to have been mentioned by sources in the region it was filmed in).

I tried to find coverage of him and/or his acting career in reliable sources that could be added to the article to help it meet the general notability guideline, but everything I found was either not from a reliable source or was trivial coverage. Martey (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Martey (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Callback Queen: review in Irish Times; review in Santa Fe Reporter; review in Santa Fe New Mexican. At least. Ergo can be considered notable film

The Right Juice: coverage about production and release abounds in national (and not only regional) media- https://www.dn.pt/arquivo/diario-de-noticias/%22o-sonho-certo%22-com-antestreia-a-hollywood-em-faro.html; https://bomdia.eu/o-sonho-certo-uma-histria-algarvia-vdeo/ https://chmagazine.pt/o-sonho-certo-em-antestreia-mundial-em-faro/: and so on; mildly significant award https://www.atlantafilmfestival.com/atlff-news/2014/10/right-juice -the film might also meet other criteria for notability- first of its kind to be shot entirely in the region, feature debut of a director -who has no page here yet.

So that I would lean Keep per WP:NACTOR. --- E.UX 08:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Doyle (YouTube host)

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

Non-notable media figure. Fails WP:GNG. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion. Does not meet the notability criteria to warrant an article. Jawlessace80 (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources consist of advocacy organizations and school newspapers (I'm not joking). One of the only reliable sources here, Business Insider, is a trivial mention that only gives Doyle one sentence. I couldn't access the NYT article, but I expect it's the same, and even if it isn't, it's still only one reliable source. Doyle does not meet our notability guidelines. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doyle's name is used three times in the NYT article. A young conservative activist, John Doyle, who runs a YouTube channel called Heck Off, Commie!, was circulating a Google doc that encouraged people to head off the purported fraud in Pennsylvania and lobby state legislators “to cast their electoral votes as Republican!”....Mr. Doyle did not respond to a request for comment, and his Twitter account, @ComradeDoyIe, was suspended on Thursday for violating the platform’s terms of service. Mark Levin, a popular conservative radio host and ardent Trump supporter, echoed Mr. Doyle’s call for Republican state legislators to disregard the outcome of the voting. I can get a gift link if you want to review for yourself. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem like WP:SIGCOV. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sarek, I appreciate it. If that's the only content on Doyle in the article, it doesn't look like SIGCOV to me. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the gift link, so you can verify: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-disinformation.html?unlocked_article_code=1.qU8.zBV-.Qre0SJHQJzE7&smid=url-share SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Like I said above, that doesn't look like SIGCOV on Doyle, since they only mention him for one paragraph as part of a broader discussion on Internet disinformation around the 2020 election. I really appreciate the gift link, by the way. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably fails WP:GNG. I do not understand the "advocacy organization" objection. Almost every research org has an advocacy or bias and you still include that under BLP with attribution. If the org has a history of lying or falsehoods we can discuss them at the RS noticeboard. That aside, I don't think one or two in-depth think tank articles that were not published in journals establish notability. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Advocacy organizations with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy or editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering are not reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and whether an organization has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy or editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering is a case specific question that requires evaluating the specific source. In other words, some advocacy orgs do fact check, have editorial control and independence from the topic they are covering. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Some advocacy orgs can pass WP:RS (per WP:BIASED), in particular the WP:SPLC, which does briefly mention Doyle... but it's fair to doubt that the ones that were cited here do; and even if they were RSes we'd still have to consider due weight and the risks of writing an article with only such sources. More importantly, on reflection, even if we did accept all of them, I don't think any of them pass WP:SIGCOV - Doyle is mostly just mentioned in passing. --Aquillion (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it does appear to fail WP:GNG. There simply aren't enough proper sources here to warrant notability. Even the New York Times reference is largely in passing, and not discussing the subject in detail. D.wright01 (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. LoneStarBoomer (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Conservatism, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Delete4ever (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Halbarga

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

Unreferenced, after a WP:BEFORE I found nothing other than the wiki article itself Svartner (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, India, and Karnataka. Svartner (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. Zuck28 (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Halbarga is recognised on maps on the district's official website. It looks to be a village[7] and a hobli.[8] (Do a Ctrl F to quickly find Halbarga). Hobli confirmed here: [9] There's also a railway station named Halbarga, outside of the village. Halbarga is mentioned in Google Books snippets including note of earth tremors in 1962. There's a school founded in 2019[10] by a Catholic mission.[11] Rupples (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

H. A. Mohammedali

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

Only 8 professional appearances, fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and India. Svartner (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Fails in WP:GNG owing to no SIGCOV. BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Todd

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

American journalist (BLP). The article is mostly unsourced, and the few references are to his employer CNN, so these aren't independent of him. I can't see any evidence of significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources independent of him, as required by WP:BASIC. Dionysodorus (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No don't delete this. I will see if I can find more sources. R2025kt (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Television. Wikishovel (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt, as with this user's other "creations". Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indrajit Chougale

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

Only 6 professional appearances, fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, India, and Maharashtra. Svartner (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Fails GNG owing to no SIGCOV. BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Holland

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

American reporter (BLP). The article is sourced from bios on the websites of institutions for which he worked, so these aren't independent of him. I can't see any evidence of significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources independent of him, as required by WP:BASIC. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Caribbean, Alaska, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Perdew

AfDs for this article:

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

Highly questionable whether there is WP:SUSTAINED notability here backed up by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Military, California, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, Florida, Kentucky, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timzinn

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

I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Mauritius. jolielover♥talk 12:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You can probably find references by searching for the census of Mauritius and a gazeteer or national map of the country. Alternatively, check https://geonames.nga.mil/geonames/GNSHome/ The precise population figure looks as if it came from a census rather than an estimate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You would be correct, there is a census result archived here [12]. This is from the Arabic wiki. Apparently it's composed of 3 villages [13] (not sure why there is information on a Mauritanian village in the French language on a Japanese government website, but alas) including exact geographic coordinates. I found a reference here [14] that there is a mayor of the location so I think it very definitely meets WP:NPLACE. There is also coverage of the commune's poor nutritional state here [15]. The town had 7106 registered voters in 2018 [16] and 5781 cast a vote. I also found references from 2015 indicating the the mayor of the town was named Dah ould Hachim.

Keep. Katzrockso (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment This has been moved to Timzine, which gets more hits but still is giving me validation problems. I'll also note that we have had issues with GNS having entries for nonexistent places, but at least it should give a location. Mangoe (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable place named Timzine, see on Bing Maps. Just needs expansion and sources. Communes are notable subdivisions. Mentioned briefly in books here [17] [18].♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Jericho

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

Article that's unreferenced for years, didn't found significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. Suggesting redirect to Jericho (2006 TV series)#Beyond Jericho per WP:ATD. Mika1h (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Kansas. Mika1h (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canepazzo

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

I don't believe this meets notability guidelines in WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. I don't see reliable sources here. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Italy. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Italian films of 2012: : notable cast, released; the director having no page, (reliable) sources exist to verify those informations-> this is the standard alternative to deletion. e.ux 18:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oto-takara

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

Should be deleted or merged/redirected if a suitable target page can be found. Per WP:NOTINHERITED Iljhgtn (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Royalty and nobility, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The spouse of an emperor is notable. We have lots of articles on "first ladies" of other countries, and the references are enough to demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the core discussion at this time, but note that this is a legendary figure rather than someone about whom we have actual historical records. Dekimasuよ! 07:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend a look at both WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:NOTINHRITED. TheLongTone (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be merged into the article about her spouse. Keivan.f^Talk 21:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as a tactical response. I can see getting full sourcing may be tricky without access to offline Japanese sources, but clearly the historical record is there under WP:ANYBIO notability, so strictly speaking it's a Keep. But a merged article has the best chance of development here into a full article since anyone working on the spouse's article would be best placed to take the material forward. I note that the Japanese Wiki version is an even less well sourced stub. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge is most appropriate, as explained above. There are sources cited, so a direct merge into a new section about his family seems appropriate and also allows for further development/organization on the profile for Emperor Seimu. Katzrockso (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ukase

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

Russian-language dicdef. Means "decree" and nothing else. We are not going to have the articles Sắc lệnh, Kararname, or Rendelet, right? --Altenmann >talk 15:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, and Russia. jolielover♥talk 17:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Kararname was created in 2011 Oreocooke (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was turned into a dab page, which I am strongly tempted to send it to AfD --Altenmann >talk 00:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica has a short article on the term. I think it's notable, based on the references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- EB 1911 is a dicdef, and erroneous, too. --Altenmann >talk 16:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on firman. The term ukase is historically used in English, like kaiser and tsar. It doesn't have to make sense. Keep. Srnec (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first two references are dictionaries, Britannica is from the 1911 edition so WP:OLDSOURCES applies. The current online edition has no article on Ukase, mentioning the word only in three contexts: as an English word of Russian origin[19], as The final edict, or ukase[20], and as ukase ("decree")[21]. Firman, kaiser and tsar are covered by WP:OSE. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dicdef. All the sources are dictionaries or dictionary-like entries. Other articles existing doesn't mean this one should too. Stifle (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did change my mind on this. There is a historical process here, so notability could be proved, and it's not our job here to focus on poor quality. If you consider something like Ukase of 1821, which obviously was in the news recently, then there is something structural and historic behind this. Moreover Tolstoy's biographies go into some details of his excommunication from the Greek Orthodox church, which was via a ukase from Synod (source) (this detail is currently not in Wikipedia, incidentally). So I'm sure notability is there, even if we only have one elderly EB source so far. I've checked EB's 15th print edition and there is no entry, including in the index. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. Even if the term is historically used in English (like kaiser and tsar), this entry belongs in Wiktionary. The fact that the only source listed is a WP:DICDEF does not help matters.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nivaran Foundation

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:ORG. The article relies largely on primary sources and routine, announcement-style pieces in local media. There’s no significant, independent, in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. The page is promotional and overwhelmingly about future plans. LvivLark (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Education, Social science, and Nepal. LvivLark (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All information in the article has been thoroughly verified. The foundation is actively conducting camps, and its activities have been featured by several leading news channels in Nepal. Mothkath (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Nivaran Foundation's activities have been reported by several well-known news channels in Nepal, and the organization has conducted over 1,200 medical camps. It is active in healthcare, education, child welfare, environmental stewardship, and community development. Additional references are being added to support its notability. I am available to provide more information or arrange an interview with representatives if needed. Mothkath (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mothkath, you're able to arrange an interview with whom? -- asilvering (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there seems to be enough SIGCOV (especially in Nepal) to support notability. - Indefensible (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please list a few of the strongest independent, reliable secondary sources that, in your view, satisfy Wikipedia’s notability criteria for this topic? Thanks.LvivLark (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Article fails WP:GNG for in-depth or significant coverage in reliable sources. Most references appear to be PR placements or the corporate website/accounts (including multiple cites to a meaningless page). Creator appears to be a single purpose account with undeclared WP:COI. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CactusWriter. Stifle (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nheira

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

Fails WP:GNG,WP:BIO,WP:ARTIST,WP:MUSICBIO LvivLark (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Anime and manga, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Much of Nheira's career predates the dominance of online media, so many of the significant sources are in print rather than on the internet. This makes it more challenging to demonstrate notability through easily linkable online articles alone.
The article already cites interviews and features from established print magazines such as *Animania*, which is Germany's largest and longest-running manga and anime magazine. For example, Animania Vol. 10/2006 (pp. 46–47) included a multi-page interview and photoshoot with Nheira, discussing his work and career in depth. These are independent, editorially controlled sources that provide significant coverage, even though they are not digitally available.

In addition, there were publications and appearances in Japanese magazines such as Kera, a well-known fashion and scene lifestyle magazine covering visual kei and alternative subculture, also manga. These were relevant at the time but, like many print magazines from that era, do not have digital archives or online articles to link to today.

There are also official book publications released internationally by recognized publishers, showing that his work was professionally distributed and supported by independent editorial teams.

Furthermore, Nheira appeared on Japanese television programs during the late 2000s and early 2010s. Unfortunately, many of these broadcasts and print articles are not archived online, but they were published and documented at the time.

I will continue to search for more accessible online secondary sources, but please note that the absence of digital links does not mean the absence of reliable coverage, especially for artists whose early career was in the pre-streaming and pre-digital archive era. NovoCurator (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject is primarily notable as a manga artist.

Most reliable sources about them focus on their manga works, with the music activities

being only a secondary aspect of their career. Deleting the article as a "musician"

would be a misunderstanding of the subject's primary notability.

I've provided sources in the article that demonstrate coverage in independent,

reliable publications about their manga work. This fits the criteria for WP:GNG

and WP:CREATIVE, making the article appropriate for Wikipedia.

NovoCurator (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the sources in the article at the moment - I went through them and I don't see anything that would count towards GNG (independent, reliable, nontrivial - the best is an interview which isn't independent). I wasn't able to find any other sources, but his use of multiple short names makes him very difficult to search for, so someone else might have more luck. Adam Sampson (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as I agree with the basic idea that non-web sources are every bit as good as web sources, and also know exactly how difficult finding pre-web Japanese sources can be, I’m afraid that I don’t see notability in the non-web sources the editor used in the article. They all seem to be either interviews, which are no good because primary sources, or else works created by/in collaboration with Nheira, which aren’t independent. The young jump citation takes us to the homepage, not an awards announcement, so that’s no good, and I’m not finding any decent sources in Japanese either. As much as I hate to see pages that people have worked hard on deleted, until better sources are able to be found…

Absurdum4242 (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sher-E-Punjab T20 Cup

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination from RfD; there was no consensus to keep it as a redirect, so it should either be kept as an article or deleted. Legoktm (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails in WP:GNG and WP:N. BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Changing my vote which I based only upon the references attached in the article, without a proper BEFORE. A web search reveals ample number of articles from multiple reliable sources. Although many of them are WP:ROUTINE, but looks enough for the article to pass through WP:GNG and WP:N parameters. BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same article that was redirected in September 2024. The article has virtually no prose and is a local cricket league in India, but has been written in the same style as a number of international leagues, with the same tables and images of stadia etc... This is clearly inappropriate – we could delete everything but the lead paragraph and add a sentence to say who the team that won the first two playings of it were and we'd have everything we'll ever need to say about the league. We could do that, or we could redirect it to List of Twenty20 cricket competitions#India and add a note with the three potentially useful references. Or we could delete it. I'd probably favour deletion but could cope with re-establishing the redirect. I don't mind either of those, but keeping in its current form is not appropriate Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in reply to BhikhariInformer: I don't see any WP:SIGCOV, just WP:ROUTINE coverage of the tournaments. If this is not the case, please highlighted some significant coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that SIGCOV is very evident. As I have said in my vote, most of them are ROUTINE coverage. (So I am not citing any particular source). I changed my vote from "Delete" to "Keep" since I felt, that amount of coverage for a state level domestic league will be borderline satisfactory for it pass through GNG. But yeah, I am not adamant on my vote in this case. If you justify that my logic is not really strong, I will surely prefer a redirect to List of Twenty20 cricket competitions#India. BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angels–Athletics rivalry

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

The subject of this article does not meet the guidelines for notability. Fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Either redirect to Major League Baseball rivalries#Los Angeles Angels vs. Athletics where this is mentioned at target as an WP:ATD or just Delete altogether if it fails the criteria for notability to be mentioned at all. I am thinking just Delete. Every team is going to be a rival with another team in someway, but this relies heavily on primary sources, and the most reliable source (Which appears to be primary as a local Los Angeles newspaper saying becoming a rivalry prove it does not seem like a rivalry. There is one from ESPN that makes a Redirect viable, but it does not meet the merit for a stand alone article. But actually, as I speak and the more I think about it, I think it would be good to Redirect per WP:BLAR, WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, United States of America, California, and Nevada. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is this all glitched out??? Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not entirely sure how Twinkle fell apart on this one either (did it get thrown off by {{TQ}}? Was there stray syntax somewhere, given the left-hanging |pg=Angels–Athletics rivalry|cat=G}}?), but I've gone ahead and reapplied {{subst:afd2}} so it should be normal/OK now. (No opinion at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Metallurgist (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am troubled by the WP:RECENTism in many of these rivalry AfDs. As in-state competitors within the same division for more than 5 decades, representing areas of the state that have their own rivalry, it would make sense that these two teams would have a notable rivalry. And I am finding several references to a rivalry. Just from the first few pages of a newspapers.com search covering the the first 25 years of the Athletics' presence in California (and there were more pages beyond these): [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Rlendog (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MLB baseball rivalries page. As-is, this article is primarily covering topics other than an established rivalry. The number of seasons in which both teams were competitive are slim. Newspapers cook up coverage about rivalries to get people reading on the regular, but no sources I have seen discuss the rivalry in depth. In some sense the talk of rivalries is more like a disjointed series of events: newspapers will talk about it when both teams have a chance at winning the division but otherwise, silence. Compare that to Dodgers/Yankees, Red Sox/Yankees, Dodgers/Giants, Lakers/Celtics where people will write about the subject in detail even when the rivalries aren't competitive. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current state of the article is not the crtierion for notability. This is certainly not a rivalry on the level of Red Sox/Yankees or Dodgers/Giants, but that level of rivalry is not required either - we have plenty of articles on rivalries that are not at the Red Sox/Yankees or Dodgers/Giants level. Newspapers do soetimes cook up coverage about rivalries, but if I look up some random pair of teams, I don't find this much coverage. For example, I tried Mariners-Orioles, and the only coverage in newspapers.com calling this a rivalry was a single article in the Kitsap Sun from 1997 saying that the teams are "talking rivalry in the making" due to a close race for a wild card spot the prior year. But clearly a rivalry between these two teams was never made. Rlendog (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, but also could we stop with the WP:NRIVALRY thing? It's one sentence deep and should not qualify the GNG standards of most rivalry pages. Conyo14 (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources found by Rlendog seem to indicate WP:NRIVALRY is met. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 03:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the references added by Rlendog, which establish notability. Recent non-competitiveness is not a factor in establishing notability to the WP:GNG standard, as notability is not temporary. Frank Anchor 14:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hans-Henning von Fölkersamb

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

Delete per WP:TNT. Article is largely built from the Lexikon der Wehrmacht which was blacklisted from the German wikipedia as unreliable (see the lexikon's own website which archives the account). The other source is also a self published blog. While undoubtedly a conscientious editor could probably find reliable materials on this person, we shouldn't keep articles built entirely from unreliable materials. Best to blow this up and start over. 4meter4 (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update to nomination. Given the objections over using WP:TNT, I modify my nomination to delete for failing WP:GNG. The article currently uses only self published materials, and no independent secondary reliable sources on this person have been located.4meter4 (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 Thoughts on the sourcing in the French and German articles? – Ike Lek (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ike Lek I think I was pretty clear in my nomination that the primary reason for deleting this was not the lack of sources (ie a notability problem), but that our article was built from only unreliable materials and would therefore require rigorous fact checking and/or a complete rewrite. This is a WP:TNT nomination because of the use of a blacklisted source which has been banned from the German wikipedia, and which is the source used to verify most of the text in our article. A rescue would be possible if an editor took the time to source the article to reliable materials, but we shouldn't leave an article in mainspace that is for the most part built from the Lexikon der Wehrmacht.4meter4 (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 Okay, but what are your thoughts on the German and French sourcing? I am considering how long a rescue would take me. Ike Lek (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ike Lek: The German wikipedia page is largely unreferenced although it appears to be built from Luftwaffe Officer Career Summaries by Henry L. deZeng IV and Douglas G. Stankey which is at present a self published digital archive. As a self published source it is not ideal. That said, deZeng IV and Stankey are published authors of a book on WWII German dive bombers and could feasibly be viewed as published subject matter experts (although the connection is not perfectly aligned to this topic). I would say it is reliable but others might not. Some editors might attack it at an AFD because it is self published, and the authors aren't clearly subject matter experts in a publishing record directly connected to the topic. The Johanniter.de website doesn't appear to have content on the topic that I could find so not looking good on the German page. I will get back to you on the French sources momentarily.4meter4 (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ike Lek: The French wikipedia page is also built almost entirely from Stankey and deZeng IV. It has an offline article from L'Express cited to one sentence and one other book source on the history of Metz cited to one sentence. The extant of the other two RS publication citations is minimal; indicating that they likely contain just passing mentions. I would say that the sources present across the German and French wikipages only indicate one source with WP:SIGCOV and that the source in question could be dismissed because it is self published. Note that this doesn't mean sources don't exist elsewhere. If you were to rescue this, I think you would need to find at least two sources with independent significant coverage that are not self published. If you find these I think it could be saved by citing both sources. I think deZeng IV and Stankey could be used as third and final source as I personally would support them as subject matter experts (again others might not agree). Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm familiar with the deZeng IV and Stankey source. I've used it before. It is very helpful, and generally accurately reflects what is in official documentation, but official documentation is often incorrect, so I generally prefer to cite other sources over it when possible, as I have caught a couple errors in it. I use it mostly as a supplement to fill in gaps from more extensive sources. I'll take a look in some books and see if I can find anything, but no promises. Ike Lek (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While undoubtedly a conscientious editor could probably find reliable materials on this person... This suggests you think he's notable. AfD is for the deletion of articles on non-notable subjects, not poorly sourced articles on notable subjects. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp We have WP:TNT for a reason. Further, I'm not positive there are sources on this person to establish GNG. Nothing substantial came up in my WP:BEFORE; but given that sources are likely in German and I may not know where to locate them I was being cautious by going the TNT route. Regardless, we shouldn't build articles from unreliable materials and that is a valid reason to TNT.4meter4 (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have WP:TNT because someone decided to write an essay, not because the community came together to fill a need and found consensus. To its credit, being a frequently cited essay does give it more weight than many other essays, but it is still just an essay in the same way WP:DINC is also a widely cited essay many editors take seriously. – Ike Lek (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page is hardly "hopelessly irreparable". It's so short it can easily be reduced to a stub and expanded later if someone finds reliable sources. Deletion is unnecessarily drastic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp I disagree. Fundamentally we don't have a single source verifying the content with WP:SIGCOV. Nobody has yet to come forward with a source that isn't self published or primary. At the very least we need to locate one secondary source to even begin entertaining the idea of keeping a stub. 4meter4 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I haven't yet voted to keep, although I suspect most Luftwaffe generals are notable. I simply disagree with your TNT comments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I think it's rather petulant to go down this path, but to appease I changed the deletion rationale to failing WP:GNG due to the lack of sources which aren't self published and which are clearly independent significant coverage in secondary materials. I certainly couldn't find any, but admittedly I may not find sources published in German due to the language barrier. Best.4meter4 (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Does anyone have access to this book? [31] – Ike Lek (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ike Lek: yes. HHvF gets three mentions. In footnote 102 on p.580: LwKdo Ost, Abt II b/Wehrbetreuung of 15 Nov. 1942, lecture by Brosius, BA-MA RL 7/566. At the beginning of November 1942 the Gruppe Wehrbetreuung switched from LwFüSt Ic to the Zentralamtsgruppe under the Chief of the Luftwaffe, with Col. Hans-Henning von Fölkersamb taking over control of it. In footnote 51 on p.221: On Fölkersamb see Hassell, Die Hassell-Tagebücher, 421 (23 Feb. 1944).. And finally in footnote 53 p.622: Needless to say, working conferences for NSFOs were held in the Luftwaffe as well even before this instruction, e.g. in Air Gau VI at Gütersloh (18–19 Jan. 1944), at I Fighter Corps in Zeist/Holland (24–5 Jan. 1944), and in Air Gau VII in Munich 2–4 Feb. 1944 where Col. von Fölkersamb dealt with Hitler’s order of 22 Dec. 1943 and the ‘NS Guidance Staff’ to be newly formed in the Luftwaffe, BA-MA RL 19/70.
Note he appears to only ever have been a Major general, a rather lower rank than that of General ascribed to him above. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That discrepancy highlights the problem of the Lexikon der Wehrmacht which has errors of this kind throughout. When basic facts like this can't be presumed to be accurate we shouldn't be building articles predominantly from this source.4meter4 (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have put a !vote to keep if I felt confident about keeping it. I'm raising these potential sources to try to do my due diligence, not to try to push an argument. Ike Lek (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because no evidence of his meeting GNG has been put forward, I am unable to find any myself, and the verifiability problems lead me to believe a fresh start is far superior to draftification. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per vanamonde's reasoning g and my own findings: a work that could be expected to discuss him in context mentions him in three footnotes as passing mentions). No broader biography available. The sourcing Fails WP:SIGCOV and the topic WP:ANYBIO. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the original nom. There's no need to keep articles that are badly sourced on the offchance that the person might be notable, unless we can actually find reliable sources to establish notability and to source the article from. Dionysodorus (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin F. Church Medal

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

No independent RS on the page for many years. The topic does not appear to have notability outside of American Society of Mechanical Engineers JMWt (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait Financial Centre (Markaz)

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

Content appears to be largely promotional with limited RS on the page which seems to be insufficient to meet the notability standards for inclusion. Does not appear to be other sources available that allow NPOV JMWt (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Caramel Crisis

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

Does not appear to be sufficient sources on the page to show that the notability standards for inclusion have been met. Not clear that the contents can even be [WP:V]] JMWt (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Simon Gray#Career: for example. It is verifiable (https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/ae3b6329e3824054aad5f0cf20b6c14c ; http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/id/1396386/index.html etc.) e.ux 18:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Theatre, and United Kingdom. e.ux 18:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Thirty-Minute Theatre and Simon Gray#Career (moving appropriate refs to those articles). -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Malin

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the last AfD he has been interviewed for his purchase of Burke's Peerage (which this article seems to dispute with OR?), but I don't see any new coverage that would satisfy GNG. AtD could be a redirect to his spouse Irène Major. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United Kingdom, and Canada. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom; the limited sources are either brief mentions and/or only seem to talk about Malin in the context/shadow of his wife. Tatler's okay (even if it does miscapitalize August), but that's one source. As a rule, I oppose all redirects from living people's names to other people without a very good reason. (On that front, the article itself is doing a lot of OR about a living person and should be TNT-ed on its face.) GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 09:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mikron Group

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

Lack of high-quality sources; most sources were written in Russian; there might be a place for this company somewhere, but probably not in English or Simple Wikipedia. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 09:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 09:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Sourcing seems ok to me though sourcing could be improved. Sources written in Russian are still valid for English wiki. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion This article was initially heavily committed by an IP range that was blocked here for SOAPing (possibly as an SEO service). Here's the IP's last revision to the article, before it got rewritten entirely.

When trying to source some of the claims, I can't find much mainstream media report on this company (and its products) at all; Googling the company's name results in its official website and our article on it - no third party pages, reports or news whatsoever. Google News-ing it results in a Swiss company with the same name; using "Mikron Group" -wikipedia Russia gives 7 articles from 2020 - 2024 in its entirety. Thinking the company being inconsequential to a dreadful level, I started this AfD.

The entire article was rewritten into its current revision, and probably 90% of the text are just OR - Wikipedian reinterpreting the original text and inferring the actual facts (e.g., "65nm tape-out in 2013, never went into production", "all chips are for contactless smart card", etc.)_{this is not a PA because I wrote these OR alone}. iris 9:15p (+8), edited 9:23p 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 13:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Just thought of this) It's also kind of challenging to implement NPOV when there lacked enough (English) sources to even establish a consensus to begin with, and judging from RT's reliability, I doubt if the Russian media's consensus is objective / unbiased enough to form a neutral POV... 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 13:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Bartenders Association

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

Nothing here to indicate that this company is notable. Only references on the page are from their own website. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Websites. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Perhaps the World Cocktail Competition is more notable than the International Bartenders Association which runs the championship. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shamsul Ulama Islamic Academy

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable under WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL, and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The only source does not give real coverage. The founder’s article, Sayed Umar Ali Shihab Thangal, also has no citations. Delete.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 08:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Schools. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 08:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lioness (upcoming British film)

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

No evidence filming ever commenced, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 06:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, India, and United Kingdom. jolielover♥talk 07:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lioness. As creator of the page, I'll admit that it's a shame to see the page go as a huge fan of Paige Sandhu (hence my username) but it hasn't entered any form of production. – Meena • 09:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nominator that live-action films that haven't started filming should not have articles, following WP:NFF. Add whatever is noteworthy or WP:DUE on any related pages as needed. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lioness – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. When it will gain momentum in the future, a refund in draftspace could be done. BhikhariInformer (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oppose "redirect to Lioness" (a disambiguation page) as an unhelpful and inappropriate WP:ATD since the redirection is only appropriate if the title "Lioness (upcoming British film)" is ambiguous, which it is not. Steel1943 (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I need to agree. Svartner (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per Wp:TOOSOON Zuck28 (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Albano Pereira Márquez

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

This article has extensive issues with copyright violations and plagiarism, but they are not "unambiguous" enough that I would nominate under WP:G12 for speedy deletion. The English Wikipedia article is translated directly from the Spanish Wikipedia article, which was copied word-for-word from Spanish language print sources. Some of the basic genealogy seems to come from issues of Revista de Estudios Históricos, but there are only so many ways to phrase those facts. However, large sections are copied directly from: Opazo Maturana, Gustavo. (1942) Historia de Talca: 1742-1942. Chile: Imprenta Universitaria.

In some cases the WP:TRANSVIO is very literal and direct:

Source text: "Radicado en Talca [...], tuvo que cerrar su tienda en Santiago, situada junto a la de un comerciante irlandés, llamado Ambrosio Egis (O'Higgins), a quien le unió en todo el resto de su vida una larga y estrecha amistad.
Spanish Wikipedia: "radicado en Talca, tuvo que cerrar su tienda en Santiago, situada junto a la de un comerciante irlandés, llamado Ambrosio O'Higgins, a quien le unió en todo el resto de su vida una larga y estrecha amistad.
English Wikipedia: "was living in Talca when he had to close his shop in Santiago. This store was located next to that of Ambrose O'Higgins, Irish merchant, whom he would have a close friendship with for the rest of his life."

In a few places the translation creates additional problems:

Source text: "Llegado a Talca, se lo entregó a Albano con una carta don Ambrosio O'Higgins, en la cual pedía le tuviera a ese hijo suyo, le cuidara y le diera una educación cristiana."
Spanish Wikipedia: "[...] llegado a Talca, se lo entregó a Albano con una carta de Ambrosio O'Higgins, en la cual le pedía le tuviera a ese hijo suyo, le cuidara y le diera una educación cristiana."
English Wikipedia: "He arrived at Talca, handed it to Albano with a letter he from Ambrosio O'Higgins, in which he asked him to have his son, take care of him and give him a Christian education. (He was clearly not asking a man to have his baby.)

User:Historiadormundo, who added the bits above, is the author of 95% of the page, so it is not feasible to just cut out the copied portions. Even if the subject is notable, the current version of the article needs to be deleted. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Chile. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The book may or may not be in the public domain. See c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Chile. There are two points: (1) When did Opazo Maturana die? As Chilean copyright follows the standard life+70, if he died in 1955 or before then the book is in the public domain. (2) Was this book created for hire? If so, then the work becomes public domain 70 years after publication; as this work was created in 1942, it would thus be. On that point, I would add that the bottom of the cover states (translation) Published by the Municipality of Talca on the occasion of the second centenary of the founding of the city., which tells me it may likely have been made for hire. Curbon7 (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7: In the United States, I think, it would have gotten a new a copyright in 1996 from the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, unless it was already in the public domain in Chile. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if Opazo died in 1962 or before this is PD, because the law originally protected only 30 years. But I think he may have died later. A work for hire would not be different because even so, Opazo would retain moral rights despite the copyright possibly expiring 30 years after publication. Municipalities' works are not exempt from copyright unless they express it. Bedivere (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opazo was still living in 1964 as he published (as it appears in this La Nación article) the book "Constanza Nordenflicht en la vida de Diego Portales". Then, there is an article written by Fernando Campos Harriet, which appears in the National Library of Chile catalog, titled "Ante la tumba de Gustavo Opazo Maturana" (Before the tomb of Gustavo Opazo Maturana). The catalog lists the year as 1965. Anyway, this should be enough to prove this was still copyrighted in Chile by the URAA date (30 years from 1970 then 50 from the 1990s, so still protected by 1996). Bedivere (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

06:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Carroll

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

WP:BLP of a surfing journalist, not properly sourced as passing WP:JOURNALIST. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they and their work exist -- the notabilty test requires them to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and the impact of their work.
But this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as pieces of his own writing about other things, Q&A interviews in which he's doing the speaking and "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations or companies he's been directly affiliated with -- the closest thing to a GNG-worthy source is an entry in the "Encyclopedia of Surfing", which is fine but not enough to carry him over GNG all by itself, and the next best thing after that is a blog entry with a clickbait headline that makes it sound like he died when all that really happened is that he got laid off in a staffing cutback. But blogs aren't reliable or GNG-building sources, especially when they have misleading and deceptive headlines like that but not any other time either.
As well, the article has been tagged as possibly LLM-generated.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Australia. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Sportspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Bearcat. I have added further material and sources that show WP:GNG. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have 'improved' the page as per Wikipedia's preferred course of action. It now includes WP:RS coverage "about them and the impact of their work" with regard to not only Carroll's career as a surf journalist, editor and author, but also as a TV producer; spokesperson for pros of shark-netting; surf safety advocate; and also 2 x national surfing champion. Carroll clearly meets WP:GNG and warrants a page. Obviously improve further if possible. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of the sources and content recently added to the article by Spinifex&Sand may be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY. This page has been improved significantly since its initial listing on this page. I suggest (and hope) that referencing now ensures he passes GNG. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

06:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'"Delete"': I agree with nominator. Delete4ever (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Boxing News

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

Not notable, received little attention from sources, and is not a main topic in any cited material. Most cited sources simply state, "someone told World Boxing News that...," mentioning it only briefly. Fails WP:WEBSITE and WP:GNG as well. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 06:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Organizations, and Websites. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 06:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 06:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shatha Hanaysha

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

There is one reliable source giving significant coverage: [L'Orient–Le Jour] (L'Orient Today): 2022, 2024. I could not find other sources to demonstrate notability. The other sources:

Not reliable sources: Committee to Protect Journalists, Al-Awda
Not significant coverage: articles surrounding the Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh mention Hanaysha, but don't cover her directly and in detail. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Palestine. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Photography, and Israel. jolielover♥talk 06:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Safi'i Kemamang

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

Fails WP:GNG. He is only known for creating the song Buruh Tani, and there is no other SIGCOV. IMO, WP:BLP1E also applies here. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, and Indonesia. jolielover♥talk 06:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luthfi Kusuma

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

Fails WP:GNG and does not meet the criteria of either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:COMPOSER. The sources cited in the article provide only lists of works, without offering SIGCOV about the subject or establishing notability. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Indonesia, and Japan. jolielover♥talk 06:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NeddieSmith

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

Article cites two fake references ([32] and [33] do not exist, also not on the Wayback Machine), rest doesn't seem to be sufficient for WP:GNG. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: A related separate page exists at Draft:Neddie smith, created by a since indefinitely blocked user. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason several sources don't exist is likely to due with how the article was originally generated by an LLM. Anyways, for the sources that do exist, I have created a source assessment list.

Source assessment table prepared by User:45dogs
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://twistedmalemag.com/introducing-music-artist-neddie-smith-exclusive-interview/	Interview with him; possibly paid to be on, given how prominent advertising seems to be on the website. WP:PRIMARY source.	WP:WORDPRESS site	Solely about the subject, since its an interview with him	✘ No
https://ra.co/dj/neddiesmith/biography	It seems plausible this could be an instance of paid promotion, but I am not sure.	Much more like a WP:TERTIARY source than anything else	Solely about the subject	✘ No
https://thesource.com/2022/04/27/recording-artist-neddie-smith-is-one-to-watch/	~ Same issue with advertising as twistedmalemag, but it seems like a much more reputable site	Seems fairly reputable	Solely about the subject	~ Partial
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}}.

Delete. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I couldn't find either of the 404 sources, so I doubt its an issue of misinputting the URL. Edit: I have found presumably what the LLM was trying to link, and added it to the assessment list. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Ireland, and United Kingdom. jolielover♥talk 06:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG jolielover♥talk 06:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed references that were unverifiable or possibly AI-generated and updated the article to include only reliable, independent sources. The article now reflects verifiable information about Neddie Smith's career and media coverage. Blueteek73 (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blueteek73, you readded the 404 URL source to The Source, which I had previously replaced with the correct one. I have readded the non 404 URL. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note that the musician has been deleted before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neddie Smith and someone tried to get around that with the unconventional spacing for the article title in this newer version. The draft version at Draft:Neddie smith also has a shifty title. If the same person is behind all of these, some salting or something similar may be necessary. With that out of the way, I will be charitable with a too soon judgment on this new musician who may receive more reliable media coverage in the future, but there is not enough now for encyclopedic purposes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swalay Digital

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

this music distribution company hasn't attracted any real SIGCOV in independent sources. What's here is mostly puffery, undisclosed paid placements, and NEWSORGINDIA-type coverage, none of which demonstrates notability. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lamtinthang Haokip

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

No role here that meets NPOL on its own. Coverage is thin. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Manipur. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Prasad (civil servant)

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

just being close to the CM doesn't make the subject notable on their own. The sourcing is just a refbomb and lacks SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bihar. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Kumar Meshram, IAS

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

this was draftified before and has now come back with "IAS" in the title. It still doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, and the long list of sources doesn't provide actual SIGCOV. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Madhya Pradesh. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How Did I Get Here?

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. On doing a BEFORE check, I can find nil. I propose deleting this and then creating How Did I Get Here? (Badly Drawn Boy album) as a redirect to Badly Drawn Boy discography; then, this makes way for How Did I Get Here? (Louis Tomlinson album), an album that does meet WP:GNG; hatnote can be added to direct people who somehow intended to visit this album (it has almost no views). (I'm sorry for making the RM, should've waited some more...) jolielover♥talk 04:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 04:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has no WP:RS, google search yields no coverage outside of databases. Shocksingularity (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 162 etc. (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no SIGCOV, no reviews or mentions. Katzrockso (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Think Like The Minimalist

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

All but maybe one of these sources (Business Standard? Maybe?) has WP:NEWSORGINDIA issues, or is an excerpt from the book. Does not pass WP:NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 04:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WWF European Rampage

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

This is a procedural nomination from RfD; it was a redirect to WWE except that doesn't mention the target. Legoktm (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Wrestling, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a redirect to WWE in the United Kingdom is a better option. I have read the article, but it feels like a house show tour, like WWE did in France or Italy. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Adams (musician)

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

Does not appear notable, the article just describes the musician's career without describing why it's significant. Also according to the logs of Gregory Adams, this was already deleted in the past, apparently due to expired WP:PROD since it failed WP:N. Bambifan111 (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Nevada. jolielover♥talk 04:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching is tough due to his rather common name, but a more focused search in conjunction with the other people mentioned in the article reveals nothing reliable about Adams himself. He's a side man who is listed in the credits of some other people's works and has been listed as present at various events, but he has no dedicated coverage of his career in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation Tree Press

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

No reliable sigcov found after a search. Quite recently established. For a publisher, there are not even passing mentions in RS of books they've published, which even the least notable publishers tend to get. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 04:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I'm not responding appropriately, this is my first response to an AfD (and I'm not familiar with all the jargon).

This is a newer small private publisher of limited editions, but has received some attention, including an article about their Peter Pan edition in Fine Books & Collections [34], a 2025 Alcuin Society award [35], announcement of an upcoming release at Tripwire magazine [36] as well as some other blogs (e.g., Ubiquitous Books [37], Collectible Book Vault [38]). I'm not familiar with RS but do see regular mentions in other user communities like r/BookCollecting (and a few others on Reddit) and regular threads in the LibraryThing forums (e.g., [39]). Furthermore, this is considered one of a handful of modern "collectible presses" tracked by Collectible Book Vault [40], like Centipede Press and Subterranean Press and a few others (though newer). Egosumliber (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Calhoun

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination. Once again, the author chose to skip AfC with a cut-and-paste (not move!) from draft to mainspace, just as they did the previous time, before it was deleted two weeks ago. Several sources have been added, so this no longer qualifies under G4. Pinging all participants of the AfD from earlier this month: @Mvcg66b3r, R2025kt, Iljhgtn, and Dclemens1971. If deleted or draftified, I suggest SALTing the page to avoid having to go through this yet again in two weeks. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not going anywhere because I have waited long enough for it to go through. I will do some edits and changes here but otherwise this article cannot go anywhere. I'm putting him on here because I am establishing notability tags and how the legacy at WGAL is important especially on the page to be provided at. Page is already reviewed and done. Thank you, have a nice day R2025kt (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@R2025kt: You are establishing notability? Owen× ☎ 14:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have established notability tags aiming at how he's always the best even before his retirement. R2025kt (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's called improving the words and I got the hang of it. R2025kt (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a {notability} tag is something used to indicate that the article is not notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well I am describing it well along with the tone. R2025kt (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I'm improving. R2025kt (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Subject arguably meets WP:GNG. PennLive has written clear SIGCOV (e.g. this or this), plus the Gettysburg Times, Omaha World-Herald, and Intelligencer Journal are probably enough. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you R2025kt (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT so that we do not need to continue to re-litigate this over and over. Updating from my prior "Draftify" !vote. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with the sources presented? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a glaring issue here is that neither the nominator nor the single delete vote so far elaborate on what grounds the article should even be deleted. The nominator speaks of a procedural nomination and proceeds to describe the behavior of article's author. Since this is the nomination's text, my impression was that this AfD was to spite the author.
Anyway, the article is a keep to me because the subject appears to meet WP:GNG. The sources found by BeaniFan are enough for WP:SIGCOV, I also see coverage from the Waynesboro Record Herald, Millersvile News, and there is also a coverage on an incident about him in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This can be used to further contribute to SIGCOV. Brat Forelli🦊 00:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nominations, by definition, don't "elaborate on what grounds the article should even be deleted". As clearly noted in the nomination, this is a recreation of an article deleted at AfD, with minimal changes. Since it is not eligible for G4, I, as the closer of the previous AfD, reasoned that those who participated in the previous AfD may wish to be aware of its recreation. I do not nominate articles out of "spite", and have no opinion on the article itself. I'd thank you not to cast aspersions or assume bad faith. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 11:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you R2025kt (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftity and SALT on mainspace. Really this should be Delete and Salt - there is no point having due diligence processes with AfD and AfC if one editor decides it's too slow or just wrong. So I entirely agree with the nomination to this core and important point. If the item does get deleted then so be it. But there is the "water under the bridge" aspect, and yes, GNG now seems established. But to reiterate and uphold due diligence this article must go through AfC formally (yes, it takes a little while) otherwise we are all wasting our time here. I would expect the item to succeed at AfC. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Requiring a notable article in fine shape to be draftified just so it can be approved at AFC and returned to mainspace is much more a "waste of time" than the alternative option of keeping this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The procedural arguments may have been relevant to handling the author and possibly to precluding an AfD, but now that we're here, can we please evaluate notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this has all gone a bit wrong. I believe this should have been handled as a deletion review of the original first AfD. My reasoning is (1) although deletion review is not for relitigation of past AfDs, it can be used when new information has come to light, which includes addition of referencing. (2) the last AfD closed as "The result was delete‎. I see a unanimous agreement that this doesn't belong in mainspace". What actually happened is that one editor said it was a contested draftification but explicitly said they had no opinion, a second editor said "draftify" and the third said "delete". At the very least, that hints that draftification might have been a reasonable option, and even if we're not supposed to send unto drafts what came from a draft, the fact that an editor in good faith believes it could be a valid draft implies that they think that with work it could be a notable topic. There's certainly only one opinion in the last AfD saying outright delete. Based on that, correct procedure is to appeal the previous deletion and start again (either because there's new information or because the close was iffy).

Now we're in the silly situation of having a "new" article nominated for deletion that is presumably different to the original article at least in its sourcing (but mere mortals cannot see), and yet there are threats of salt and complaints it didn't go through AfC. AfC is entirely optional. The most helpful approach is to look at the current article on the subject's merits.

If I'm honest, I think he's a pretty weak keep and I wouldn't quibble enormously with a delete; the sourcing is there but it's not earth-shattering. Some cultures love salted fish: I'd suggest that all the talk of SALT is best met with a Trout. Elemimele (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny K. Davis

AfDs for this article:

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

Pure copy-paste of the single public domain source. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Fails WP:SIRS so fails WP:BIO, again. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The editor just copied https://www.ausa.org/people/mg-johnny-k-davis-usa. However the subject seems notable enough to have a properly crafted article. MichealKal (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Copy pasting a public domain source isn't helpful. I see some mentions [41], but they're all primary sources related to the military. I don't see anything in Gbooks or Gnewspapers about this person. Not even sure a draft would help this, as it's entirely using one source. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it needs copyedit, he meets notability standards. I'm made quite a few updates since finding this article post-deletion nomination, though there is still room for improvement. — ERcheck (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Let me know if more reliable sources are found to bolster notability. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gjb0zWxOb: A three-star general, requiring U.S. Senate confirmation, in command of a major unit of the U.S. Military (that requires a 3-star general as commanding officer), is sufficient for notability. In addition, his military awards are notable honors. See below and current version of the article for additional sources. — ERcheck (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MichealKal and Oaktree b: While original article was a cut-and-paste, it has undergone copyedits and additional sources have been added. — ERcheck (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT as plagiarism; while a 3-star general is automatically notable, we can't countenance that. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per WP:GNG. Sources include [42][43][44][45][46][47] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even with the updates, it's all primary/ US military sources. The only non-primary are 3,4 and 6. Two local sources and a black military journal, which doesn't seem to be about this person. I can't find any non-primary sources in my search, and we don't really have much here. Still not enough to change my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: While your vote does not change, I have these comments: The journal is US Black Engineer and Information Technology, not a "black military journal"; Davis' profile is on page 28 of the article. Stars and Stripes, which reports on U.S. military, is not a primary source, nor is the U.S. Senate. — ERcheck (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify- to allow sometime for some cleanups of the primary and non SIGCOV sources, along with the copyediting needed to avoid copyvio issues.Lorraine Crane (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per expansion of sources. BD2412 T 02:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Hawkeye. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as alternative to WP:TNT as a WP:ATD, given there is potential notability. But not with this article. After all, tough discipline is the name of the game now. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow further discussion of the sources provided above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gun cultures

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Global gun cultures

Articles for deletion/Gun cultures

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

This article has had unresolved tags dating back years that the article needs more for verification. Also, tags more recently which argue that there is duplication of some content which could use merging into other articles where appropriate. The article itself had fairly strong support for Delete back when it was last discussed in 2014, but the closer ended up going with no consensus. You can read that discussion for yourself here. Overall, I think this does not add anything new that could not be better dealt with elsewhere when factoring for due weight and proper verification of reliable sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Social science, and Firearms. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be listed as 2nd nomination and the nomination history box is missing. Not sure if thats fixable or needs to be redone. Metallurgist (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch @Metallurgist. I use Twinkle to nominate any AfD, and in this case it did not apparently update that automatically. Most of what happens with Twinkle seems automatic except I do not know if it has a date range after which point it no longer pulls old AfDs for including as a "(2nd nomination)"? I might ask about this at the Teahouse. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I think its because the name changed. I wonder if that impacts the title. You can probably just move it. Metallurgist (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the content is DUE for a pure page move or new title, I think the article should be deleted as is. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean move the nom page not the article to say 2nd nomination. Metallurgist (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a mess of an article that at best needs TNT. Springee (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International and nation-by-nation gun culture is a major focus of academic study, especially when it comes to comparisons between nations; the article does have some issues but they're all fixable. We definitely should have a top-level article on gun culture to summarize the national ones and cover broad aspects or comparisons that aren't nation-specific, and plenty of the stuff here is worth retaining in that final article, making TNT inappropriate. It might make more sense to rename the article to "gun culture" without the plural, though, since while the term encompasses a major focus of study the plural is rarely used. EDIT: I've done some quick rewrites and added some sources to address the most glaring problems. --Aquillion (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sloppy OR/SYNTH article, also slapping together several different topics. Metallurgist (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article claims to be about "attitudes, feelings, values and behaviour of a society, or any social group, in which guns are used", whereas, what it does for the most part is explain the firearm laws within various nations, with negligible highlights to any sort of culture. Overview of gun laws by nation covers what this article covers with much more nuance. Any minor mentions of "attitude" or "culture" can just be added to the Overview of gun laws by nation page. Kvinnen (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have mistakenly(?) removed my !vote. Please be careful when adding yours. :) Metallurgist (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Broad and notable topic, with encyclopedic context. Svartner (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is poorly written and has a lot of problems that necessitate a complete rewrite. Therefore, I think WP:TNT would be best here. I also agree that there is a lot of repeat information that is already on other articles or could be moved there. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, to preserve the usable kernels of information in the article for a more encyclopedic development. BD2412 T 01:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Nothing of use to a free, online encyclopedia will be lost. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: overly broad/vague topic. It should have a Template:Globalize tag on it. Relevant info should be included in other articles about gun laws/culture in various countries. Marquardtika (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TNT. My logic is that something like this, given the profile, needs to be an incredibly good representation of Wikipedia. And not many editors would wish to start from here. The word "culture" means something quite specific, and however one wishes to interpret that, it won't consist of a random scrape of gun laws in different places. It's not encyclopedic in this form. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I take recommendations to blow it up and start over seriously at AfD, but such suggestions have to make clear why the content is policy-non-compliant and irredeemably so. "Poorly written" is insufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is obviously notable per the WP:GNG, the article is horribly written in a way that many countries' "gun culture" just refers to the politico-legal aspects of gun ownership, rather than the social aspects. Should either be renamed to clarify that it is discussing gun culture by nation, or the article needs to be rewritten to remove the rote description of gun culture by nation to discuss the concept itself. From a quick perusal of the academic literature, there is significant disagreement over whether there exists a "global gun culture". Remember that AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Katzrockso (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fosters Ridge, Indiana

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

It seems to me that this is the same place as Uniontown. Baker says for one of the names that it was moved, and under the other that it was "changed"; the map testimony is inconsistent because the citation for this one is the 1876 atlas, whereas Uniontown is from the topos and doesn't show on the atlas. The scale of the latter is considerably larger and I'm not sure that if they were both indicated there, they would be distinguishable. However, the topos also show the "Fosters Ridge Ch" basically as the northernmost structure of Uniontown. Neither of these is a model of metropolitan splendor, and I think I could justify deleting both, but for now I'm leaving it at this. Mangoe (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Uniontown, Perry County, Indiana. They refer to the same place, per media coverage. Uniontown is definitely a real place, people are referred to as being born, living and died there in newspapers.

[48] [49] [50]

The church and cemetery are still active. Katzrockso (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anila

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

Anila fails WP:GNG - searches shows that Anila don't have much significant independent coverage for a standalone article, mostly details are in relation to Vasu or Vayu. Both Vasu and Vayu have a mention of this name, and the article don't have any other significant detail to merge to either of those two articles. Asteramellus (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Asteramellus (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I fixed the syntax in the nomination so that {{subst:afd2}} could actually function. No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terry, Indiana

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

Yet another of the late period post offices that seem to be a feature of this county, and again, I've got nothing, not helped by the fact that Terry is a terribly common name. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Monkeys

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

Nominating my own article from eight years ago for deletion per WP:ORG. Although the organisation played one split (half a season / year) in the prestigious European League of Legends Championship Series, it did not achieve anything during that split (placing last in their group) and was relegated right after. Coverage in reliable sources exist but is limited to routine coverage of the split. None of the organisation's other teams accomplished anything either before it rebranded as Ad Hoc Gaming, which has the same lack of notability issue. Yue🌙 01:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Organizations, and Germany. Yue🌙 01:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Received some coverage: InSüdThüringen, kicker.de, gameswirtschaft.de, Thüringen-Kreativ.de. I could see a chance with a rescope of the article. IgelRM (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narwana Road

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

Article appears to be some WP:OR and does not pass GEO notability guidelines. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Your Suggestion!

But I'm a newbie Editor and don't know much about rules

If you can, try to fix it yourself or remove the illegal content but please don't delete this article.

Thank You!

Romeo Singh RomeoSingh2010 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know much about the rules, you need to learn. The article fails WP:NGEO Aesurias (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom + article appears to have been written by AI Aesurias (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not the place to discuss content issues. However, there does appear to be WP:SIGCOV of this road [51] [52] [53], keep. Katzrockso (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find sourcing that discusses the road in depth. Received a 404 error when trying to view 2/3 news sources in the article. One source provided by Katzrockso could be considered significant coverage [54], but it's also just discussing road conditions/repair work work which is fairly routine coverage of a road. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagyashri Borse

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a G4, but no indication factors have changed sufficiently since prior discussion as it is unclear that Kingdom is sufficient enough for N:ACTOR. Star Mississippi 01:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Star Mississippi 01:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Three film appearances till date - cameo appearance in first film, lead cast in second film and female lead in the third film. Leaving aside the cameo, the second film has mild coverage and the third one has significant coverage. According to me, it passes WP:NACTOR. But if others disagree, I would not mind a redirect to Kingdom (2025 film) as an alternative. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Nigeria, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — significant role in the second film and female lead in the third suggest she is close to meeting NACTOR. With the release of Andhra King Taluka, she would clearly fall within the guideline. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she had at least two lead roles in notable productions, therefore meeting WP:NACTRESS. Coverage about those productions in reliable sources exists and contains assessment of her performances, confirming their significance and allowing sourced expansion of the page. For example, this review of Mr. Bachchan in The Hindu and this review of Kingdom in the Deccan Chronicle. I cannot see how this second lead role in her career -in a film released after the October 2024 AfD (closed by the nominator)- where a first lead role was clearly mentioned- could not be a strong indication that things have changed sufficiently regarding her notability status according to the applicable specific guideline, and am therefore inviting the nominator to withdraw. e.ux 10:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slobodan Jovanović (rower)

(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. A redirect to Yugoslavia at the 1948 Summer Olympics may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Croatia. Let'srun (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yugoslavia at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Rowing – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yugoslavia at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Rowing, where his name was mentioned. His country of birth and birthday were even unknown, but when it comes to the former, Olympedia incorrectly stated what is known today as Serbia instead of Croatia! For instance, if this person was born in either Croatia or Serbia, he did not even have respective corresponding articles on Croatian and Serbian Wikipedia. Even if there was, either Serbian or Croatia articles, notability still might be issues in both Wikipedia versions. I also noticed that an article titled "Slobodan Jovanović" deleted three times on HRwiki (2010, 2011, 2021) – just not sure if he was the same Slobodan Jovanović (rower). ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yugoslavia at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Rowing as per viable WP:ATD. Fade258 (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

François Lepenant

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

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC/WP:GNG. Note that the article currently contains only database sources and zero sources with WP:SIGCOV. Per WP:SPORTSCRIT one source with significant coverage must be added to the article in order to keep the article (see final bullet point). Finding sources per WP:NEXIST is not enough to pass this mandatory criteria per the RFC outcome against building sportsbio pages with only databases. Editing of the article must happen to meet the policy guideline required at SPORTCRIT, and editors should not make keep arguments until a minimum of one non-database source with SIGCOV is physically present in compliance with the RFC outcome.4meter4 (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling and France. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- to 1925 Tour de France as a possible ATD, citation no.3 seems to support this claim of the subject having at least participated in the event.Lorraine Crane (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An even better redirect would be List of teams and cyclists in the 1925 Tour de France. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I searched in old French newspapers. After the tour he thanks his fans extensively in a newspaper. Next to that I see he had his own coffee shop. He also entered for the 1926 Tour de France. But I doubt it’s enough for meeting GNG. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide examples of the type of coverage that he received? Katzrockso (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two diffferent suggested target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of teams and cyclists in the 1925 Tour de France as per viable WP:ATD. Fade258 (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures)

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

A character from The Sarah Jane Adventures. Barring mentions in plot summary of the franchise, the only analysis mentioning Luke in a significant manner is in discussion of Sarah Jane Smith as a mother figure, but this is discussion of Sarah Jane's role as a parent, not of Luke's character. Beyond that, all of the discussion is either dev info (Which, while valuable, is largely PRIMARY and does not contribute to notability) or plot information, which also does not contribute to notability. I would suggest a redirect/merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures, where the series' characters are discussed in tandem with the series' overall development. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The discussion of the character's sexuality and the change of his storyline development show GNG and make him worthy of his own article. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DaniloDaysOfOurLives this is all development information reported from PRIMARY sources, such as interviews or official media for the series. None of it is SIGCOV, such as analysis or reception, relating to the storyline. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of LGBTQ+ studies-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 02:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: This DigitalSpy article and Doctor Who - A Cultural History, p. 147, are a secondary sources on the topic, although relatively brief ones. More significant is the SFX article (badly) linked in the article. I does go off some quotes from interviews, but goes into commentary from there. Any reason this should not be a reliable independent source? And just for record-keeping, Being a Girl with The Doctor, p. 160-161, does have something to say on Luke's character, but mostly in relation to Sarah Jane as you've described. Daranios (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Digital Spy is purely plot summary of the character and mention of the actor's later roles; there's no discussion of the character here, while Cultural History is one sentence in a massive section about another character, with the same applying to the Being a Girl source. I did in fact miss the SFX source, and that one is a really strong piece, but beyond that I'm not sure the meat is there as a separate split. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akjemal Magtymova

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

This subject is not actually the subject of WP:SIGCOV by unrelated, non-primary reliable sources. The glut of WP:PRIMARY is interviews and passing mention among coverage of another topic, and released by WHO (UN) and the like. They could be challenged and removed anytime just for being primary. The sole exception is the WP:BLP1E-level coverage due to being put on leave for alleged misdeeds. This subject fails notability metrics at WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOLITICIAN. JFHJr (㊟) 00:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, Medicine, and Turkmenistan. JFHJr (㊟) 00:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Odeh Bisharat

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

Appears to be a promotional article for a non-notable minor journalist. The sourcing I could find is mostly bylines. A few analyses from sources that I dont think make the cut for notability. Also, entirely reliant on primary sources. Metallurgist (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Israel. Metallurgist (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 02:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tere Ishk Mein

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

This article on an upcoming film does not meet WP:NFF. NFF says upcoming films "should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". There's minimal information in the production section, with the sources basically being pre-release publicity fluff. A draft article exists already, so moving this to draft was not an immediate option. This would be a good candidate to DRAFTIFY this version. Ravensfire (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Ravensfire (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Very minimal production coverage. Definitely not enough to satisfy WP:NFF. As of the other draft, delete that one. Editors can continue to work upon this one's drafted version. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Since the nomination, the article has been updated with multiple independent, reliable sources documenting the film's teaser, production credits and media reaction. Notably:

The Telegraph (India) published a descriptive piece that describes scenes in the teaser, discusses themes of heartbreak and explicitly links the film to the director's earlier work (Raanjhanaa). [55]
Hindustan Times ran a feature describing the teaser, its themes ("loss and longing") and the Rahman score.[56]
ThePrint (PTI feed) carried the teaser release and production details (release date, music credits), demonstrating national wire pickup.[57]
Deccan Chronicle recorded measurable social media/fan reaction to the teaser, documenting public interest [58]

Taken together, these pieces represent multiple independent, reliable sources with descriptive/analytical reporting (not just brief casting announcements). For these reasons, the subject currently meets WP:GNG and the article satisfies WP:NFF's allowance for notable productions. I recommend Keep (mainspace) provided the article is promptly edited to remove promotional wording and every factual statement is inline-cited to the sources above. Deepaknaik1988 (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Deepaknaik1988 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Files

File:Tusalava (1929).webm

I believe that this work's copyright would have been restored by the URAA as it was copyright in New Zealand in 1996 Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it was published in the UK, not New Zealand but UK is life+70 for films so the work would have had copyright restored in 1996 still. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. copyrights for works published before 1930 have expired, regardless of whether they had previously expired and been restored under the URAA. hinnk (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aphex Twin sig.svg

This signature cannot be considered public domain as it is extremely stylized. The original license said, "This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore is in the public domain in the United States because it consists entirely of typefaces, individual words, handwriting, slogans, simple geometric shapes, etc." This is wrong, because it is not simply an example of handwriting. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The United States has a very high threshold of originality for signatures. See c:COM:SIG US. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to bring any value to the article, or discussion thereof, and neither is it Richard D James signature which would probably have some notability to it. Does not appear to meet rationale for uploading locally either as a non-free image. 77.86.103.78 (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Payday Publishing logo.png

Logo is made of text and a simple shape. It is definitely below the threshold of originality in the U.S. (which is where Payday Music Publishing is based in), and thus must be in the public domain. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 15:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:NFL international games logos.svg

Former logos that do not significantly enhance the article, so fail WP:NFCC#8. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richland Creek, Nashville, Tennessee Watershed showing cities Belle Meade and Forest Hills.jpeg

No justification for why the work of this local government (not the federal government) should be public domain. No indication of the source of the satellite image. GMG ^talk 19:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

The Christmas Collection(Amy Grant album)

The Christmas Collection(Amy Grant album) → The Christmas Collection (Amy Grant album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Fails WP:RDAB. This is almost WP:X3-eligible but an article existed at this title for a month (no content was merged to the target). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Las Muertas

Las Muertas → The Dead Girls (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Just created this redirect ... but now, I'm not sure if it should be "retargeted to Jorge Ibargüengoitia as a {{R from work}}" (1977 novel written by this author) or "keep" (target subject is based on the novel created by the aforementioned author). Thoughts on this? (At the present time, we seem to not have an article for the novel.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2 redirects to a fangame that is barely mentioned the target yayy

I Wanna Be the Boshy → I Wanna Be the Guy#Fan games (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
I Wanna Be The Boshy → I Wanna Be the Guy#Fan games (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

IWBTB (while popular in the IWBTG fagame community) is only mentioned once, in a "Hey, this exists" kinda way. Anyone who doesn't know what IWBTB is would barely be helped by this redirect, and anyone who does know what IWBTB is would be better off looking elsewhere (as in, non-Wikipedia sites). User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'm not sure I understand the objection. "Hey, this exists" describes the destination coverage of many redirects; WP:REDIRECT says that one reason for a redirect is for "Subtopics or other topics that are described ... within a wider article". It seems better to the reader to get this one sentence than for the redirect not to exist, so I support keeping it. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for me. IWBTB being mentioned in the article gives the redirects due weight. It's one of IWBTG's biggest fan games and has quite a decent amount of searches, I think. I'm biased myself, of course - back when I was younger, IWBTB was something I played before I even knew IWBTG was a thing. As a younger reader, if I looked IWBTB on Wikipedia, I would've appreciated the redirect. I think that may be the case for others. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 25, 2020

May 25, 2020 → Murder of George Floyd (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is not the only notable event that has happened on this date. There was also the Central Park birdwatching incident, the Killing of Dion Johnson, the 2020 Surinamese general election and many others. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to a disambiguation page is probably the right call, then. Ehh, is that what we do with dates? Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Portal:Current events/2020 May 25. Not a fan of WP:XNRs from the article space to any other space, but it seems to be the best target we got. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as Steel suggests per prior identical Rfd results. Respublik (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ROad Rash

ROad Rash → Road Rash (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
TObey Maguire → Tobey Maguire (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Fire EMblem → Fire Emblem (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
THe Little Mermaid → The Little Mermaid (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Virtual COnsole → Virtual Console (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
STar Ocean → Star Ocean (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Castlevania Portrait of rUin → Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
WilD Arms TV → Wild Arms: Twilight Venom (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
G gUndam → Mobile Fighter G Gundam (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Life FOrce → Life force (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Spider RIders → Spider Riders (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Drill DOzer → Drill Dozer (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
SLayers → Slayers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Barney the DInosaur → Barney & Friends#Characters and cast (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
SHanks → Shanks (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
SOma → Soma (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Galley-La COmpany → List of One Piece characters#Galley-La Company (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
MusicBRainz → MusicBrainz (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
MIyano Mamoru → Mamoru Miyano (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

WP:UNNATURAL capitalisations, as per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 20#Oliver and COmpany; also all created by the same user as in that nomination. Some of these had been nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 26#TObey Maguire in the past, but there has been consensus in the recent discussion to delete. (In fact, I did not realise WIld Arms was part of the old nomination as well when starting the recent one.) 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Different capitalisations aren't important to users because the search function shows them their desired search automatically, regardless of capitalisation. These are a waste of space and recent discussion points to consensus. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as functionless, as the search function doesn't require them, and there's no scenario where these spellings would ever be appropriately used in article prose. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlikely nonsense redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as terms with capitalizations that are unlikely to be used by readers in searches. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 19:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blade of the Immrotal

Blade of the Immrotal → Blade of the Immortal (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely typo given the length of the redirect, and only obstructs searches like Special:Search/immrotal and similar by not allowing the engine to perform automatic typo correction. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Panda (film2)

Kung Fu Panda (film2) → Kung Fu Panda 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible disambiguation qualifier, as there are no other redirects with it, and readers are probably not going to use it in searches. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 14:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a redirect from Kung Fu Panda (film) to Kung Fu Panda until Ceyockey moved it to its current title as part of what appears to be a botched WP:ROUNDROBIN move. Not sure why they didn't just move over the redirect since they were already an admin at that point. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per @Ahecht, seems botched and very unlikely to be intentionally searched. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knuckles the Hedgehog

Knuckles the Hedgehog → Knuckles the Echidna (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Knuckles isn't a hedgehog, and I don't think he's ever been mistaken for one in the games or outside of them. Delete this redirect. Mr slav999 (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible search term. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 14:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per knuckles. the average knuckles will likely not mistake knuckles for a hedgehog, even with the most cursory possible knowledge of sonic (& knuckles) and hedgehogs, and almost definitely won't misinterpret the term "hedgehog" as referring to knuckles, as it will almost invariably be preceded by the words "sonic the" (and then proceeded by "& knuckles") or "shadow the" consarn _{(uhh shit rock yeah)} 15:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Knuckles isn't a hedgehog! Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:XY for the same reason why Sonic the Echidna doesn't exist. (Since yeah, I get not everyone knows video game topics: Sonic the Hedgehog or Knuckles the Echidna?) Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:THESIS1

Wikipedia:THESIS1 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#1. End decision-making by “consensus.” (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:ENDCONSENSUS → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#1. End decision-making by “consensus.” (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:THESIS2 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#2. Enable competing articles. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:LETCOMPETE → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#2. Enable competing articles. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:ABOLISHBLACKLISTS → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#3. Abolish source blacklists. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:THESIS3 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#3. Abolish source blacklists. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:THESIS4 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#4. Revive the original neutrality policy. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:REVIVENEUTRALITY → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#4. Revive the original neutrality policy. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:THESIS5 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#5. Repeal “Ignore all rules.” (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:REPEALIAR → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#5. Repeal “Ignore all rules.” (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:THESIS6 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#6. Reveal who Wikipedia’s leaders are. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:THESIS7 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#7. Let the public rate articles. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:THESIS8 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#8. End indefinite blocking. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:REVEALLEADERS → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#6. Reveal who Wikipedia’s leaders are. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:ENDPERMABLOCK → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#8. End indefinite blocking. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:THESIS9 → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#9. Adopt a legislative process. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:ADOPTASSEMBLY → User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#9. Adopt a legislative process. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:RATEARTICLES → Wikipedia:Content assessment (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Also:

WP:ENDCONSENSUS WP:THESIS2 WP:LETCOMPETE WP:ABOLISHBLACKLISTS WP:THESIS3 WP:THESIS4 WP:REVIVENEUTRALITY WP:THESIS5 WP:REPEALIAR WP:THESIS6 WP:THESIS7 WP:THESIS8 WP:REVEALLEADERS WP:RATEARTICLES WP:ENDPERMABLOCK WP:THESIS9 WP:ADOPTASSEMBLY

Mostly for reason 4 at WP:RDEL but also 6, 8, etc

I don't object to there being a shortname redirect to this users essay but adding loads of them looks like a form of canvassing. JMWt (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite a lot for something in userspace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 12:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
speedy close to properly nom those together (it's not a long story, it's just easier with massxfd lol), and tell larry that that's not what a thesis is consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh right uh... otherwise, delete all, and edit the theses to not use curly quotes and put the sentence's punctuation inside the quotes (yuck) consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - it's pretty obvious this is an attempt to get attention to the essay, aside from WP:RDEL. ^EF⁵ 13:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take em all down (Delete all) No reason to give a userspace essay with zero extra weight compared to any other of those random essays that are never read whatsoever so many shortcuts. Literally just one would suffice. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all per RDEL 4 and 6, less convinced about 8 applying but one good reason to delete is enough here. CNC (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing these being used. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These can be recreated if this essay becomes popular and people will be referencing it in discussions. Right now these shortcuts seem premature. At the moment it doesn't seem very likely that Larry Sanger's essay will become an important part of future discussions. Antibabelic (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have properly tagged and added to this nomination the additional redirects mentioned by the nominator. (Prior to this point, the only redirect properly tagged and added into this nomination was Wikipedia:THESIS1.) However, note though that Jlwoodwa changed the target of Wikipedia:RATEARTICLES prior to my tagging of the redirect: Wikipedia:RATEARTICLES now targets Wikipedia:Content assessment. Steel1943 (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~At the minimum, I am "delete Wikipedia:REPEALIAR" since I keep thinking it has something to do with reaping a liar. Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete all except Wikipedia:RATEARTICLES (targeting Wikipedia:Content assessment). Agreed, all these shortcuts are overkill for a target so new and not even in the project space, co-founder of Wikipedia or not. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except the new Wikipedia:RATEARTICLES → Wikipedia:Content assessment. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. User:Larry Sanger is entitled to his own user page and its contents and that's it. These redirects are too much. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 19:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: The community would benefit by having deep links into the individual theses and essays, so that they can be discussed. This is not an ordinary essay. It's 37,000 words long, and each major section is a significant proposal that Wikipedia is being invited to consider. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Larry Sanger. Convenient redirects would facilitate much-needed discussions. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

L'AGEFI

L'AGEFI → List of newspapers in Switzerland#French language (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

WP:RETURNTORED, notable and article provides next to no information on it. See frwiki article [59]. Creator also a blocked sock. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ziltoid the Omniscient (crater)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete

The Snowball Fight

The Snowball Fight → Little Bear (book series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

too vague to be a redirect to a specific book series imo Shocksingularity (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I created that along with other Little Bear book redirects, without assessing each one individually. What if it were moved to "The Snowball Fight (book)"? Noel Tucker (talk • contribs) 14:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural heritage of the Nation

Cultural heritage of the Nation → Cultural heritage of Peru (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Cultural heritage of the Nation is kind of vague and when I searched for it on Google it ended up getting results for all nations including Peru. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too vague. "The Nation" isn't a general term for specifically Peru. I don't even know how that got there. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I created the redirect; it was clearly a mistake per WP:R#DELETE. Thanks for your understanding. JustEMV^🦙 (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Respublik (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A metamorfosis

A metamorfosis → The Metamorphosis (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Aragonese(?) language title. Fails D8. — Hydrogenation (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it fails D8, then it fails D8. Simple as. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next British Columbia Liberal Party leadership election

Next British Columbia Liberal Party leadership election → 2018 British Columbia Liberal Party leadership election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete as political party no longer exists under this name (barely exists as is), so there won't be another BC Liberal Party leadership election Epluribusunumyall (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BC United or delete. Presumably, someone will replace Kevin Falcon as BC United leader at some point by leadership election or some other process. The future of the party is unknown, as is its name. The ballot name of BC United remains "BC United (formerly BC Liberal Party)".[60] Also, BC Liberal Party, BCL, and BCLP remain registered alternate names for the party.[61] This means no other party can claim the "Liberal" name for at least 10 years per Elections BC rules. Since the party was known as some variation of the BC Liberals or Liberal Party of BC for most of its 122 years, its recent disastrous name change is not reason alone to delete this redirect. There are others though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

床

床 → Tokonoma (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I tried PRODing this page, but the PROD was contested by Eva UX. I still think this page (now redirect) should be deleted. Tokonoma is only one use of this character, and an extremely obscure one that I have not been able to verify to any sources (not even Wiktionary!). In every language that uses this character, its primary meaning is "bed". Deleting this redirect would take readers who search for this character to the search results [62], where a link to Wiktionary is prominently featured on the top left. This is the best option for readers, who I am certain are overwhelmingly looking for the meaning of "床", not some obscure abbreviation of a phrase in which it is used. Toadspike [Talk] 13:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above. Oreocooke (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Tokonoma is only one use of this character."--->Restore DISAMBIGUATION page then. (it had 4-5 entries before the nominator him/herself removed other entries, leaving but the one associated with the current target....). See page history, and this version (which can obviously be improved). Also, this type of disambiguation pages is pretty standard, please see Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. Either a DISAMB is needed, or a redirect seems warranted and helpful. I cannot see how deleting the information could be "the best option for the readers". Especially if the wiktionary link is STILL in the disambiguation page...(And it was there; again see old version mentioned!) --- E.UX 16:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! --- E.UX 16:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed three entries because they violated WP:FORRED and WP:NOTDICT. All three of those entries simply defined this character as "bed" or similar, which I absolutely think is something readers should be told, just in a way that complies with our policies and our purpose as an encyclopedia. Toadspike [Talk] 20:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I always thought the essay FORRED [it is technically not obvious that an essay can be violated, but never mind] was about pages that are redirects not about given entries in a disambiguation pages. And I don't think that NOTDICT applies to the presence of information inside a disambiguation page that contains otherwise useful entries (rather again, to articles themselves) but maybe I am wrong; that policy certainly does not forbid to have a link to the Wiktionary inside a disambiguation page, which was the case. Anyway, retarget to Toko (disambiguation) seems to be a good compromise. --- E.UX 21:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other uses on the dab incarnation failed MOS:DABMENTION, whereas the redirect's target does define the term. Lacking any other target, the redirect is right where it should be. Paradoctor (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to toko (disambiguation) and add tokonoma per Mycetae. In my search bubble, searching for 床 isn't overly helpful, with the suggestions particularly not. Paradoctor (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Search "isn't helpful" because it's an extremely common character that usually means bed or couch and that appears in numerous compounds. We of course wouldn't redirect to bed or couch per WP:FORRED. I don't think we want to create dab pages for random Chinese characters; I was surprised to see we have 中 but this seems like a special case. Pointing to Toko (disambiguation) is only "helpful" in the very narrow sense that it sends readers somewhere specific, but the specific page misrepresents the character's typical usage and includes a bunch unrelated entries, which seems rather unhelpful. I know I'm the one who raised the Toko (disambiguation) possibility but the more I think about it the more wrong it seems… --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
misrepresents the character's typical usage Disagree. DUE is not a concern for dab pages, we have articles for that, if and when we do. The term is ambiguous, so we disambiguate.

"isn't helpful" because Well, that just supports my point. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DUE is not a concern for dab pages Sure, but we do concern ourselves with not misleading or unduly 'astonishing' readers. ~~I haven't struck my 'weak retarget' (yet…) but~~ It seems odd to send readers to a dab page that omits the most common uses of 床 and includes a bunch of entries that 床 never refers to. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what you're getting at. If it's a valid entry, then 床 does refer its subject. We got three of those. If you say there should be articles about some other meanings, either WP:SOFIXIT or ponder the wisdom of WP:WIP. All remaining cases can be covered with a Wiktionary link. "Surprise" has no seat on this table. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant 25 of the 27 entries at Toko (disambiguation), including several of the other Japanese entries, which have nothing to do with 床. And that we have articles on bed and couch, which is the primary meaning of 床, but those are appropriately not listed at the Toko dab page. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The furniture is a red herring, but I can see how someone could disagree about 床 being ambiguous with toko. No problem: 床 (disambiguation). The need to disambiguate has been demonstrated, leaves only the where. Paradoctor (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that is a good solution and continue to believe that a Wikipedia search is where we should send our readers. A redirect to "Toko" would give our readers one of several readings of this character in one of several languages in which it is used. It would be akin to directing our readers to a broom closet, when they're seeking to understand a vast palace. Unhelpful at best, misleading and frustrating at worst. Toadspike [Talk] 21:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a common character whose primary meaning is different from the current target. The usage as synonymous with tokonoma has been disputed, although I see there are two references in the article. ~~Or weak retarget to Toko (disambiguation), where the character appears twice as a surname, and add tokonoma. I prefer to send to search where Wiktionary and various uses on en.wiki will appear.~~ --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate with tokonoma and the 2 proper names from Toko (disambiguation). CJK redirects have always been tricky to address, and this seems like a reasonable compromise to give readers a comprehensive but accurate overview of 床 on enwiki, with the option of going to Wikitionary if needed. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 18:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khmer Knong

Khmer Knong → Khmer people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Term not mentioned in article and I couldn't find a meaning for it through a search. Suonii180 (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't been able to work out the meaning of this, but part of that is that it's never used in English-language contexts that I can see. Search results are almost all low view-count videos of groups of people dancing. Based on Google translate, this transliterates to កូនខ្មែរ in Khmer. There isn't an article at this title on that language's Wikipedia, and googling doesn't help me understand (many of the results are for YouTube videos tagged as comedy though if that helps anyone?). Whatever, this redirect is not going to help anybody searching on the English Wikipedia - someone who knows what this means (presumably) isn't going to find anything useful at the target and those who don't know what it means won't be any the wiser. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as creator of redirect: @Thryduulf Whatever Google Translate spat out is wrong, ខ្មែរខាងក្នុង (or the shortened form ខ្មែរក្នុង) is the correct way to spell the term in Khmer. (Tangentially, please do not use Google Translate for anything Khmer-related). In this context it means "Inland Khmer" or "Central Khmer". The term is really only used sparingly to distinguish what we would call Khmer people from Cambodia from Khmer Loeu "Northern/Upland Khmer" and Khmer Krom "Southern/Lowland Khmer".

Because it's used so sparingly and the fact that it's only relevant in context of Khmer Loeu and Krom is the reason why I decided to make the redirect instead of separate page. I'd like to note that while this is no means a reason to keep the redirect, there is now something similar with regards to the Lao people where "Lao Loum" redirects to the main Lao people article while Lao Soung and Lao Theung exist as seperate articles.

If not deleted, the redirect could instead be renamed to "Khmer Khangknong" or "Central Khmer people", the latter of which is similar to what is done with Northern Thai people. TansoShoshen (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed with @TansoShoshen. Seems like too rare a term. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kuruluş: Orhan season 2

Kuruluş: Orhan season 2 → Kuruluş: Orhan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kuruluş: Orhan season 3 → Kuruluş: Orhan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kuruluş: Orhan season 4 → Kuruluş: Orhan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kuruluş: Orhan season 5 → Kuruluş: Orhan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The first season hasn't started airing yet and nothing about a 2nd (or later) season is mentioned in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so delete per WP:TOOSOON then (and maybe also WP:CRYSTAL) Oreocooke (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are meant for if users search for any other season it will redirect them. Yes not confirmed but those are surely upcoming seasons now there is no reason to delete those there is nothing as WP:TOOSOON because they aren't full article yet. They are just redirects to make search easier and if the season release which can be similar to the previous seasons of this continuous Ottoman historical series produced Mehmet Bozdağ such as Diriliş: Ertuğrul or Kuruluş: Osman. If releases anyone can edit those season pages and expand them more. Also its not WP:CRYSTAL those are just redirects. Now can you clarify why you want just redirects to be deleted? A$ianeditorz (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no mention of seasons 2-5 in the target page, it would lead to readers being surprised. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't completely different topics if they search they will come on Kuruluş: Orhan where they can find which season till now is released. And you haven't answered why you want just redirects who are making search better for readers to be deleted? A$ianeditorz (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I see no reason for deletion of redirects.

Therealbey (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that's... not how that works? redirects can be deleted just fine, it's not like wp:cheap is a universal unconditional policy that takes priority over all other things and prevents the deletion of all redirects. if you have opposition towards deleting those (which would then likely be a keep vote), that's cool and good, but you should make an argument towards that consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 22:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I)support what @Consarn said Oreocooke (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

support asking what the actual argument is? consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 20:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

actually, it's probably worth a ping, so @Therealbey, what exactly did you mean by that? consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 13:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with @MPGuy2824, it'd be too surprising to readers. If and when all those seasons come out, we can add the redirects. For now, we shouldn't delude readers accidentally. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primarily as useless redirects that simply extend the name of the target without useful navigation. Also per nom. Respublik (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Ivo

Doctor Ivo → Doctor Eggman (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

ivo is a name that exists, so there's at least two other doctors with it (maybe even more!). still, it seems eggman is the only one who would fit this bill here, so consider this a weak nom consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 12:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ivo, where Ivo Robotnik is listed -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This doesn't appear to be ambiguous. There's no one else identified as a doctor at the Ivo article, let alone known as Doctor Ivo. - Eureka Lott 22:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed Ivo Pitanguy who is clearly on the list. -- 65.93.183.109 (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per @65.93.183.109 - if there are two doctors, we might as well disambiguate. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules

Template:Discrimination sidebar

Template:Discrimination sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all the content in this sidebar is in the footer navbox (by construction) so this is providing redundant navigation. The footer navbox is better for page layout as it does not crowd other right floating content like images and infoboxes, so I proposing simply replacing this with the footer navbox where the footer navbox is not directly transcluded. Frietjes (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox vice president styles

Template:Infobox vice president styles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 5 uses. Don’t see any reason this warrants its own wrapper. {{Infobox manner of address}} works just fine. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Regions of Johannesburg

Template:Regions of Johannesburg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Regions of Johannesburg with Template:City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality.
I believe the two templates are meant to show the same information. GeographicAccountant (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Use

Template:Use (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template appears conceived to merge the functionality of a large number of datevar and engvar templates, but it is not complete in function or form, and does not integrate into the related existing and complex ecosystem of templates, modules and categories, and it is unlikely it will be. It actually serves little purpose and I found multiple cases of misuse, likely through misunderstanding, while swapping all usage for the traditional counterparts. I raised concerns on the template talk page, where Trappist the monk provided feedback. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Less than or equal to

Template:Less than or equal to (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

~~The character could be:~~

copied

or pasted with "Emoji & Symbols"

~~instead, though it would make it less easy to type, but is unused regardless.~~ BodhiHarp 15:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator does not make a compelling case for deletion. There is an entire category of similar typing-aid templates, so it's not clear why this one is being singled out. The lack of usage may just indicate that people are substing it. And, as I get tired of having to repeat, as WP:TFD#3 states in bold for emphasis, being unused is not a reason for deletion unless there is also no likelihood of being used. The use case for this typing aid is perfectly plausible. Sdkb ^talk 15:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt people are substing a template that has no indication whatsoever that it is meant to be subst. What's more likely, is that this just isn't used at all. Gonnym (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, / RemoveRedSky ^[talk] 16:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the nominator did not give a good explanation, the template is unused and there is nothing to say that it is supposed to be substituted. While we are at it, delete its counterpart {{Greater than or equal to}}. —Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

User:Jaafar1

Unsourced & promotional BLP in userspace from a user with few good-faith edits. The WP:FAKEARTICLE also makes false claims, for example it says he captained Australia at the 2000 Olympics, which is obviously not true. Statements like "Jaafar's talent is unquestionable" and "Jaafar can just as easily now grace the cover of any fashion magazine as he can a soccer magazine. He is credited with instilling a new "chic" factor in Dulwich Hill's dressing room." push this close to a WP:G11. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:MZXKUWR/sandbox

Unsourced autobiography. The prose also borders on being a WP:G11 candidate. To date, the creator has made no edits outside of their own autobiography. Please delete as an unsourced BLP Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was: SNOW KEEP. This already has far more participation than a normal MfD and there is an overwhelming consensus that this is an appropriate essay to have up. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses

Oh boy, here we go. So I actually I already posted my concerns at User talk:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses, however after second thought I think this might be more appropriate. I'll just copy over here what I said there:

After reading through this, I believe ~~some~~ many parts of this may have WP:POLEMIC problems. Let's start with number 6 (I also don't want to call these "theses" since that feels pretentious for just a wall of text). POLEMIC defines it as or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). Within the context of the section, this statement Thus my question: If it has this world-class influence, why do the people entrusted with content decisions on Wikipedia go by twee handles like “CaptainEek,” “KrakatoaKatie,” and “WereSpielChequers”. feels especially problematic as it deliberately names specific editors and–in my opinion–is an attempt to vilify these editors and other functionaries in general. Other sections like this one have been edit-warred in and out of the essay with the concern accusing an identifiable editor of working to systematically marginalize Christians" so that his troll army will know whom to harass. This just feels like a deliberately divisive stance that is only here to try to cause arguments. More statements like in the End or loosen restrictions on “meat puppetry just feel like trolling as well. My point is that this entire thing reads purely like some kind of attempt to stir up off-wiki and on-wiki drama alike, without serving any real purpose.

So, looking back at this, I have come to the conclusion that this does not belong on-wiki. Some editors evidently believe that some of this problematic material should be included, as shown there. So what does the crowd think? Bon appétit mes amis. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 15:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and suggest withdrawing. The named editors have thick enough skin to survive (a) the mild implied criticism that they shouldn't be using anonymous user names and (b) the mild slight in "twee". These don't rise to the level of "attacking or vilifying". We don't need to waste as many words as will be wasted if this isn't withdrawn. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal no longer an option, since someone else has supported deletion. Good luck everyone. Keep it brief. Try and make one copy edit for every 25 words you spend here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the co-founder of Wikipedia surely has the right to publish thoughts about the backroom going-ons of the encyclopedia, and may or may not have innovated the concept of WP:SNOW (which would pertain here). Sanger is a Wikipedian and an active editor, he has as much right to publish a personal essay about Wikipedia concepts and rules and regs as the next person (but hopefully he will consider removing that the names of individual editors from the essay if the surrounding language is critical of editor actions). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep on the basis that i'm writing a really funny comment regarding it :flushedbread: consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 15:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
meh We have enough hard drive space. Sure these ideas have mostly been tried and failed. But deleting them will just bring more attention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Doc James and Firefangledfeathers. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, WP:USERESSAY says (bolding mine)
Polemics in the form of personal attacks against particular people, groups, real-life ideas (e.g. artists or politicians), or against Wikipedia itself, are generally deleted at MFD, as unconstructive or disruptive. Likewise, advocacy of fringe POV and pushing of fringe content and conspiracy theories is not tolerated.
, the motive of this essay seems to be to get us to both-sides pseudoscience etc. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - once we've all had a bit of fun with engaging with this claptrap, it should be deleted. For one thing it undermines core policies of the project. For another it gives undue prominence to an editor who has no special standing and hasn't edited in mainspace for more than a decade. For a third it includes/encourages fundamentally destructive ideas like doxing. It's textbook WP:NOTHERE, the editor is free to scribble this nonsense across the internet, it shouldn't get further oxygen here. JMWt (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Invalid rationale for deletion. All of the reasons for deletion basically boil down to people disagreeing with the content or tone of the essay. @Larry Sanger has the right to make his opinions known, even if the majority of the community may disagree with him. We should not shove him out the door after he finally returns to Wikipedia just because we don't like his criticism. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't really want to do this, even though I highly disagree with Sanger. But the wording of these 6 attacks our admins, sysops, and other people in positions of power on Wikipedia. So, per WP:POLEMIC, I have to vote delete. I have taken two examples, "Wikipedia’s editorial work is self-managed by a group of volunteers—or what is presented as such" and "It is time for Wikipedians to grow up". If Mr.Sanger would reword his "theses" to disinclude attacks on our editors, I would be inclined to change my vote to keep. Also, on a completely unrelated note, protection from the Wikimedia Foundation won't save people from authoritarian states, like what happened to those Belarusian admins. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a case where the remedy for bad ideas is discussion of the badness of the ideas rather than suppression of the ideas. There has been lengthy discussion of these nine theses at Village pump (miscellaneous), almost all negative. If this original paper is deleted, would the discussion then be deleted, hatted, or left on the record? If the discussion were either hatted or left standing, readers would infer, maybe incorrectly, what Sanger had said. Leave these ideas standing for continued discussion and continued criticism.
- I am not asking for this nomination to be withdrawn, because the discussion of this nomination is useful to show how strongly the community disagrees with Sanger's ideas. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the first time I've ever seen WP:IDONTLIKEIT used as a reason to !keep. Bravo. JMWt (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I disagree with a lot of Sanger's views (and am disappointed that he has not engaged with any of my criticisms apart from saying that I sound like a reasonable person after sharing a lighthearted anecdote about how I used to work at McDonald's) but this isn't the kind of thing that usually gets deleted. People have a right to contrary opinions, especially in userspace. I'm too WP:INVOLVED to even think about closing something like this, but I think a speedy close would be a good idea if this keeps getting WP:SNOWBALL keeps. To anyone who is not a Wikipedian reading this, literally anyone can nominate anything for deletion at any time. That doesn't nessecarily mean the content in question will be deleted. As an aside, I do think the page shouldn't name certain editors, but that's something that can be solved without wholesale deletion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless one of the mentioned editors objects. This nomination feels like a moral panic more than anything. Paradoctor (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The co-founder of this website should have a right to comment on it. T Magierowski (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something he already did at his very own personal website. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and twitter consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand is not freedom of expression, but question of whether the form of expression chosen by Sanger is disruptive. Constructive discussion is always welcome. Paradoctor (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it constructive? As you've said above there's a clear issue of targeting other named editors - which you weirdly then waved away by saying that only matters if they object. What about all the other editors who object to this framing? Why should it only matter if I'm the person being targeted? JMWt (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said "mention", not "target". Calling handle "twee" is not, prima facie, a capital offence, so there is no need to be preemptively offended on behalf of others. That being said, being explicitly name may make someone fell stronger about this, in which case action may be appropriate, if for no better reason than work climate.

I said "constructive discussion is always welcome". To what degree Sanger's missive is that is what is being discussed. Paradoctor (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh no, it's definitely disruptive, i'm not even gonna give any credit to the idea that it isn't. it's made from a borderline childish misunderstanding of what reality is. hence my vote being based solely on the basis that it will be used for the sake of humor, because that's really all the value i think we can wring out of it consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the polemic parts at least. This is a personal essay and even the co-founders are subject to Wikipedia's rules, as much as the keepers attempt to give Sanger a free pass (as a reminder, Wikipedia is not a monarchy). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal blog, and the content is found at https://larrysanger.org/nine-theses/ his personal blog. And free text is saved at Wikisource, not Wikipedia. Ignoring what the content is about, which in my view is plainly naive, Sanger goes to the point where he says this: "I do not want [the following 62 people] to be doxxed, however. I do not want their identities to be revealed without their permission; I am asking everyone to respect their anonymity. If anyone does doxx them, it will be against my explicitly stated wishes." Yet, mentions their user names for the sake of "transparency". If anyone in that list is actually doxxed, Sanger has explicitly suggested that he'd be sorry for them, it's good to know their names for the project's transparency, but he wasn't actually ask for their personal information. Coupled with this reversal of a violation of POLEMIC, the essay has the sole purpose to express polemical opinions that go against Wikipedia's purpose and the purpose of user pages and essays. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides the WP:SNOW and pearl clutching, beware the Streisand effect. Mentioning specific editor names as part of an argument about the Wikipedia hierarchy says nothing about those editors in particular. Themoother (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reasonable userspace essay. Specific statements mocking or casting aspersions about specific people can be dealt with by any admin and do not require deletion. Heads up to journalists covering this story: anyone can nominate a page and initiate this deletion process for any reason. You could nominate the Earth article for deletion right now if you really wanted to. We operate by consensus, hence legitimate and illegitimate disagreement alike are documented for all the world to see, and the conclusion is based on strength is arguments according to existing policies and guidelines. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic, but that's the one article you can't nominate for deletion REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Germane essay. The quasi-legal threat that Mr. Sanger has made on the Elon social network in connection with this essay might be another matter for discussion elsewhere, but there is nothing about this particular essay that strikes me as running afoul of our long-established leeway for commentary. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while Larry Sanger is clearly WP:NOTHERE IMO, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with having suggestions on how to improve Wikipedia, however misguided, in your userspace. Deletion will only lead to more accusations of censorship etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I would be supportive of RfDing the Wikipedia-space redirects to the various user subpages—redirects to these pages do not belong in projectspace. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:04, 2 October 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Draft:Burke Files

User has repeatedly resubmitted this draft despite being told many times that they have not shown the subject’s notability. Despite the draft being rejected, they figured out how to manually resubmit. And what did they change since last time? They added one source. Rejection hasn’t stopped the disruption, so let’s try this instead. Oh, and I still think it might be LLM-generated. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The source they did add was another piece written by the subject so didn't even remotely help the case towards notability. This has now become disruptive. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib)
Delete Tendentious resubmission. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I disagree with the rejection. I will agree with the rejection if I see specific tells of generation by a large language model. Although I disagree with the rejection, resubmission after rejection is disruptive. Discussion would have been an appropriate response to rejection. Resubmission after rejection is never constructive. A partial block may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon see more history at DRAFT:L. Burke Files McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mcmatter - I did see the history, and I don't see specific evidence of the use of an LLM, and I disagree with the rejection, but disagree more with the attempt to resubmit after the rejection. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

Extra Credits (closed)

Extra Credits – Restored and draftified, in agreement with the closing admin. Owen× ☎ 12:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Please can I have the Extra Credits article restored into my personal draft space? The article, in the form it was deleted, was awful but there was at least one better version in the history. I found quite enough valid sources to make a decent short article about it (slightly more than a stub) and having the old article and it's history, poor though most of it was, would make that easier than starting from scratch even if the new article would need to actually follow the sources and not bear much resemblance to old one. Thanks. DanielRigal (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to oppose this request, especially when coming from a respected, longstanding editor such as you. But why didn't you simply ask the closing admin to do this before bringing it here? I doubt Salvio giuliano would deny this request. If I see no objection here, I'll restore to draft. Owen× ☎ 12:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OwenX, no objection at all. I would have done so myself if asked, and only refrained because this DRV had already been started. —

Salvio giuliano

12:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:Haldhar Nag Kutir before renovation, in June 2005.png

This image was deleted because it was placed in an inappropriate location. In this revision, I have placed it in the correct location. Please undelete it. Thyj (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dismiss the appeal as a misrepresentation of the facts. The image was deleted per WP:NFCC#8. The misplacing of the image in a gallery was only brought up as an aside, and was not the reason for the deletion. Will reconsider if the appellant amends their appeal to state the facts honestly. Owen× ☎ 12:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the fact it was in a gallery was only a subsidiary point. The main problem was the fact it's not contextually necessary, and that's plainly correct, and I don't think it's even arguably wrong. It can be adequately explained in text. I don't think it's ideal to direct link to a copyrighted photograph as a reference either, per the external link policy, the reference should be to the web page it's hosted on. Local Variable (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creating articles Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates

Speedy deletion candidates

Articles

Files

Categories

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Palestine governments

Category:Male tennis players born in the 1980s

Category:Sport in Ngawi

Category:Beaches of the Algarve

Category:Dirty Harry video games

Category:Jewish American people in New York City politics

Category:Controversial video games

Category:Good article review circles

Category:Wikipedians who use pacifiers

Redirects

The Christmas Collection(Amy Grant album)

Las Muertas

2 redirects to a fangame that is barely mentioned the target yayy

May 25, 2020

ROad Rash

Blade of the Immrotal

Kung Fu Panda (film2)

Knuckles the Hedgehog

Wikipedia:THESIS1

L'AGEFI

Ziltoid the Omniscient (crater)

The Snowball Fight

Cultural heritage of the Nation

A metamorfosis

Next British Columbia Liberal Party leadership election

床

Khmer Knong

Kuruluş: Orhan season 2

Doctor Ivo

Templates and Modules

Miscellany

Deletion review

Extra Credits (closed)