Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 10

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ NGPezz (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Acanothyra is a typo of Acanothyia, a dubious and extremely obscure extinct sea sponge, potentially a Cretaceous glass sponge, though information is very scarce. The typo appears in sources such as de Laubenfels (1955, pg. 94)[1] and Sepkoski (2002), and this typo apparently trickled down to the mindat entry cited as the article's sole source. The corrected name appears in sources such as Reid (2004, pg. 555)[2] and its PBDB entry[3].

The problem with a simple rename is that a legitimate article for Acanothyia would amount to a one-line description which would barely edge against even very liberal approaches to notability. Even if this approach was followed, the text of the current article would need to be completely discarded, as it incorrectly borrows the infobox, classification, and database IDs of Amphipora, a completely unrelated stromatoporoid sponge. The mindat entry is also contradicted as a result.

I consider an AfD to be the most sensible course of action considering the entire article is a net negative contribution to the site, and even in an improved iteration it would be close to net zero. NGPezz (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename - while I'm certainly not attached to this page, it's been accepted that all validly coined genera are automatically notable, providing they are not an accepted synonym. Feels like opening a can of worms to go against that and set a precedent that generic notability is also beholden to some level of available information. Whether any of the current content is salvageable isn't relevant to whether the topic passes notability. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and provide a correct infobox. Frankly at this level of content the only difference between renaming vs deleting & creation of new stub is the administrative effort of the latter - the former we can do without a sysop bit. Also produces a redirect from a published misspelling, which is a plus. And yes, we do want an article Acanothyia per WP:NBIOL. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, good arguments for a keep, rename, and remake, which shouldn't take too long. I felt it was on the edge of notability but I can certainly see the argument that notability is maintained. Nomination withdrawn. NGPezz (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Originally PROD, but Svartner advised AFD instead.

This article has been unsourced for years. Prior to 2019, it used TheFinalBall as a reference until it shut down. Other languages are also unsourced, except Portugese, which has one source. Though, it's Blogspot, but it is written by Paulo Moreira (I assume the footballer), which may give it some credibility. Otherwise, I can't find sources on him, not even on databases. Roast (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Roast (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment – Deproded because the player was the top scorer in the 1941–42 Primeira Divisão. It's highly unlikely that nothing exists about the player. Svartner (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per the sources added to the article and because it is guaranteed the top scoring football player in Portugal would have been covered during his career. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 18:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article has been updated with some sources. Patre23 (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I have no qualms against the nomination, but being of the history and the time this is going to be a case of WP:OFFLINESOURCES. Govvy (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Even though the source below is a blog, the article includes several newspaper clippings from the time: [4]. Svartner (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward L. Artau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Draft:Ed Artau was created in draft space, as judicial nominees are not inherently notable. The creating user evidently copied the draft article and pasted it in article space. That user appears to have been around long enough to know better. The article is not ready to move from draft space and even if it was, it should have been moved, not copy/pasted, to preserve the edit history. Safiel (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Safiel (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment Article name was changed without consensus from WP:COMMONNAME Ed Artau. Safiel (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Already notable as a Florida appeals judge. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Even if we accept notability, the current article in article space should be deleted and the article in draft space should be moved to article space to preserve the edit history. Since this was a copy/paste move a merge of this and the draft is not appropriate, simply delete and move the draft to article space.Safiel (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a violation of the GFDL. Also, state appellate judges are not automatically notable. BD2412 T 16:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article and keep the draft. Traditionally, we only accept articles for American federal circuit judges once approved by the Senate. If this nominee is approved, we can move the draft into project space. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Query While he does indeed appear not to be sufficiently notable yet, the statement that this was cut-and-pasted from the draft doesn't appear to be borne out. Compare the draft as of 25 June (most recent edit), and the article as posted 30 June. There is very little overlap - only that that could be reasonably expected from working from the same sources - and the draft has much more content. @Safiel: who nominated, @BD2412: who !voted based largely on that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to query Even if we accept that this article was created fully independently, the article still fails WP:GNG and should be deleted on that basis alone. Draft:Ed Artau should be left as is and when Artau is confirmed by the Senate, the draft should be moved to article space. The draft is more complete than the article space version and there is nothing from the article space version that needs to be contributed to the draft. Safiel (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations and merge encyclopedic content. If that article is deleted at AfD, other targets have been proposed. As I see it there's consensus against a standalone and also consensus to keep some of the content, possibly at multiple locations. The target of the redirect is less critical. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Niche fictional organization from Marvel universe. Article fails WP:GNG and is just a plot summary and list of appearances; no reception or analysis found, nothing useful in my BEFORE. WP:ATD-R suggests we can pipe this to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations, maybe merge the lead there? (It's unreferenced, unfortunately) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Organizations. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Marvel teams list clearly fails WP:NLIST, so there is nowhere rational to merge or redirect. The article itself also fails notability. Marvel Wiki is that-a-way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The basics should be easily verifiable with (probably among many others) Smart Pop Explains Marvel Movies and TV Shows, p. 129-130, and Marvelous Mythology, p. 210. There is a small bit of commentary in the context of depiction of institutions in the MCU in "Time to Work for a Living: The Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Organized Superhero. ". Daranios (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am still feeling like WP:INDISCRIMINATE is failed by the article, so it doesn't change my opinion. There's also no single place that would make sense to redirect the term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's also no single place that would make sense to redirect the term may be the case if List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations were deleted, but only if no alternative fitting target can be found. So while we can continue the discussion here, it would be great if it were to remain open until that's decided at that deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no objection to that, as if the list was decided to be notable, then it would absolutely be a viable place for redirection. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Collecting more sources: Brief commentary in The Twenty-First-Century Western, p. 261 (plus some plot summary p. 262, 264). "Beyond the Law: What is so “Super” About Superheroes and Supervillains?": The Nova Corps representing the state, including negative aspects; importance in the MCU. Daranios (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can only see a snippet of Super-héros ! - La puissance des masques, but it provides confirmation of the parallel to Green Lantern Corps by a non-Valnet source. And a really weird fact, Guardians of the Galaxy is listed as "Highest death toll in a superhero movie" because of the deaths of the entired Nova Corps in the Guiness Book of World Records. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nova (Richard Rider), who seems to be the primary Nova character. Given the bulk of Nova's notability is due to this character, and the coverage for the Corps is non-existent, it's likely better to redirect here, where the Corps are very relevant as part of the Nova character's backstory. Would also be safer on the chance the teams and organizations list is redirected or deleted via the ongoing Afd. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge parts as appropriate to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations (deletion discussion is pending), Nova (Richard Rider), and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe groups. Not sure about the best redirect target. Commentary has been found! It is so far quite limited, but coverage is not non-existent. Did not yet have time to search further, so casting my intermediate !vote. Interestingly, the commentary so far focusses on the MCU incarnation. Daranios (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Seeing a slew of other deletion nominationts that was as much time as I wanted to spend in searching for sources. As only short secondary sources turned up which can likely fit into another (list other otherwise) article, a merge is fine with me. Daranios (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/merge per Pokelego999. Limited coverage that doesn't pass WP:GNG, but there is a clear WP:ATD for the character this is associated with. Let's strive for compromise and consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/merge List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations (deletion discussion is pending), Nova (Richard Rider) 200.46.55.53 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because a number of editors are recommending a Merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations and this article has been brought to AFD. Was there a second possible merge target article if this one gets deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: If it should come to that, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe groups has been suggested as an alternative target once, Nova (Richard Rider) twice. Daranios (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of behavioral factors on financial reporting quality of SMEs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable topic; feels very AI-generated and reads like an essay. I’d be fine also with merging into SME Small and medium enterprises, but I don’t think there’s much that can be salvaged. GoldRomean (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: I concur with nom that it feels AI generated, but even if it didn't, an article with apparently no available modern sources, and no apparent value would be a strong delete for me. If someone wants to try to save it, maybe draftify it, but short of someone volunteering to try to do the legwork, it seems that nothing of value would be lost by loosing it. Foxtrot620 (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely unencyclopedic. Entirely AI generated, on an unnotable topic. Weirdguyz (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Regardless of if it's AI, it is written and titled like an essay. Maybe this topic could be an article section, but it could probably be fine as just a sentence or two in a different article. - Ike Lek (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I assume the merge alternative the nominator put on the table would actually be to our article on small and medium enterprises, and not the SME disambiguation page. (I have no opinion or further comment.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately I don't think there's anything salvageable here. If it had a better title and wasn't written as an essay, it would probably be a case of WP:TNT, but the current title of the article isn't worth keeping, so it would have to be written elsewhere. --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 08:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and all the great rational already put forward. Patre23 (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--FreaksIn 19:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I ran the article text through GPTZero and the result was 100% probability of being AI-generated. Eulersidentity (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. After a full month, we've managed to garner zero policy-based arguments here. Owen× ☎ 17:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

As I didn't found no major critic review even this movie is release. And no reliable sources. Fail to meet WP:NFP Or WP:GNG— Preceding unsigned comment added by DivitNation (talk • contribs)

• Note: this nomination badly needs formatting and sorting. Please fix it if this is a serious nomination.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Bengali films of 2025 but there's one review in Bengali, so maybe more and a potential Keep.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The review is looks paid and very low quality source. The others times of india sources are purely promotional as per wikipedia TOI is promotional for film. Need more sources to established notability. DivitNation (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For input by non-blocked editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 23:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Premier League on television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No need for this to be a separate article from Indian Premier League. Vestrian24Bio 10:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 10:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Indian Premier League#Broadcasting largely per WP:NOPAGE. This topic is adequately covered at the redirect target. Frank Anchor 12:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: First off, this was intended as a place to reinstate some history regarding the history of its broadcast rights that had been unilaterally removed by another editor without explanation, while allowing the main article to have more of a streamlined summary. In addition, this article is modeled after several similar articles in American sports, including NFL on American television and Major League Soccer on television, with the possibly of including more details about things like the production, notable personnel, etc. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Vestrian24Bio 01:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Indian Premier League#Broadcasting which covers the topic suitably. We don't need a separate page with this level of detail into the broadcasting, the summary already in IPL article is sufficient. The keep vote seems like WP:OSE. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It meets all Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. Milicz (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I have struck out this user for Sock puppetry. Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Indian Premier League#Broadcasting Unlike sports like the NFL, NBA, MLB ad NHL, the focus on this Sport is at the International Level and the IPL is not the overwhelming focus of Cricket. Article is also quite small for an article on Sports broadcasting. Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Initially even I thought that this article should be redirected, but when I looked at similar such articles of NFL and NHL, I realised that when the league will grow in years, broadcasters will change and there will be too much information to keep on the main IPL article. So we can put it all here and only summarise there. Also we can include various broadcasting/viewership records and stats here.

So I support in keeping this article here, as said above by other users aswell. Editking100 (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Editking100: see WP:OSE, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Vestrian24Bio 03:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at WP:OSE as per you said, and my vote may not have followed the counterargument clause there, but my sole objective was to give information on the context (relevant here) wrt to other leagues doing the same and nothing else so I mentioned them here as a base example. I will not repeat it again, thanks for noting it to me. Editking100 (talk)

Your argument when the league will grow in years, broadcasters will change and there will be too much information to keep on the main IPL article is WP:CRYSTAL-based speculation. When and if the league grows and there becomes too much information to keep on the main IPL article, adding a spin-off article can be considered. But certainly not now. Frank Anchor 14:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can verify yourself, there is currently 4x or 5x more information on broadcasting here in this article as compared to the main IPL wikipage (broadcasting section). So this was my reason above when I said, I am in support for Keep here, considering we already have more information to fill a spinoff article currently citing 48 sources, which isn't included in the main page. Editking100 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I usually try to avoid WP:OSE, but in this case, it's clear this article was modeled after similar ones in American sports such as the aforementioned NFL on American television and Major League Soccer on television. According to WP:NOPAGE, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. With the size of this article, I think the unwieldy argument applies in this case. In addition, the article is well-sourced, so it passes WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ridiculous- we are not a TV directory and so supporting keeping this (or any similar article) is a violation of this. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• we are not a TV directory Agreed; WP:NOTTVGUIDE says:

  An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable.

  I don't see how this article on the whole is a violation of that. Left guide (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion specifically with regard to redirecting or keeping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Indian_Premier_League#Broadcasting. No need for separate page. RangersRus (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Indian_Premier_League#Broadcasting. 200.46.55.53 (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist but it currently looks like No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to closer I don't see any keep votes advocating for anything other than WP:OSE, a no consensus close would be effectively supporting these bunch of OSE votes. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any keep votes advocating for anything other than WP:OSE. DesiMoore's keep !vote offers a rationale backed by a reasonable reading of the WP:NOPAGE notability guideline section while also asserting that it meets WP:GNG based on requisite coverage. Left guide (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 5 votes for Redirect and 3 votes for Keep till now. RangersRus (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability isn't in doubt here - the critical question is whether a merger is viable. In my view it is not: the article is presently at 1100 words, and most of that is reasonably encyclopedic, at least to a similar degree as comparable articles. There's likely room for expansion, with the 2008-2017 period being covered in only a couple of paragraphs. There's a few scholarly sources touching on the subject; see [5], for instance, which has a page or so of content. In sum there's too much content to be reasonably merged into the parent article, and a spinoff is appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of islands of Vanuatu. Owen× ☎ 20:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

After extensive searching I was unable to find any other sources that mention the island or even locate it on a map. As such if it exists I believe it fails WP:GEOLAND Giuliotf (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because for the same reason, (unable to find any other mentions of it or even locate it on a map):

Leumanang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Oceania and Islands. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both The Lonely Planet book mentions each island once, on the same page. The other sources do not mention the islands at all or are no longer available. One mention in one source is insufficient for WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Many refs added --books, websites Lamro (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't access reference 3 or 4 (for some reason Google Books no longer works in my browser), but the Seach (not "seech") reference is an utterly trivial "this exists" statement probably lifted from WP, and the last reference doesn't mention Varo at all. I stand by my delete. However, since we can verify these islands exist from multiple sources, I would be open to a merge to List of islands of Vanuatu. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of islands of Vanuatu, which itself could be expanded with this kind of information. Metallurgist (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added more refs to support notability--books with ISBN numbers and pages. Lamro (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the extra links. Unfortunately I can't access some of them, but I was able to access one of the new sources for Varo which helpfully has Varo Island labelled on a map in roughly the location where it should have been (-16.5422, 167.6965), which likely means that Leumanang is here (-16.5303, 167.7054) (one of the alternate names for this island on geonames is Limaning, so it seems like a good match), which would make the island here Arseo (-16.5200, 167.7155) (using google earth to look at historical photos I can see some buildings on the south of the island in 2003 with the island becoming overgrown between 2003 and 2015, which is consistent with what is written on the wiki page. The names I have found for these three islands are Fido, Limani and Faroun.

Unfortunately I am unable to access most of the new references, best I've been able to manage is using google books to see some snippets, for Varo Island as far as I can tell both new sources have very brief mentions that help confirm the location of the islands, but little else (maybe someone with better access to the sources can provide more context).

For Leumanang Island, one source is a brief mention that was also added to the Varo page, the mapaction PDF I am unable to access (the url might be incorrect) and for reference 4 (^[1]) I am unable to see a preview and I can only see 3 snippets, all three of which are snippets of maps, but where the location of Leumanang appears to be further north, near Norsup, so it appears that these three mentions at least are of a different place with the same name (possibly an alternate name of Uri (island) or Uripiv or maybe the island here (-16.0990, 167.4427) which I have been unable to find a name for, but these are just guesses. I also suspect the current reference 7 refers to one of these islands as they are missing from that page and the other Leumanang Island looks uninhabited).

I'll tidy up the wikidata entries and add the location information so the conversation can be better informed. Giuliotf (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am unable to find evidence that this person meets the general notability guideline. The coverage that does exist is either non-substantive, or not independent of its subject. My bold redirect to Upwork, of which he was CEO for a brief while, was reversed at RfD. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable apart from the companies he's worked for. LinkedIn, Crunchbase, TC, and Forbes contributor articles are not RS Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Previously the subject at an RFD so not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I can find the references which are meeting the Wikipedia's notability standards for a person. Check these: [6], [7], [8], and [9]. On the basis of these sources the title meets WP:NBIO. Sooterout (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (1) is a WP:FORBESCON piece, (2) is a piece he wrote himself and that was published on his employer's site, (3) could just about count towards GNG if we're being very generous, but is mostly just an interview about the work that Facebook is doing, and (4) is an interview. At best that makes 1 very marginal GNG-qualifying source. MCE89 (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this analysis: none of these sources individually meet all of the criteria of WP:SIGCOV. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with User:Sooterout. Knox490 (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if this person really is notable, because it's so badly written. If this is paid for, he was ripped off. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not GNG. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help to have other editors review the sources brought to the discussion by Sooterout;
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the companies he's worked for are notable, but he appears to be well-know only for them. 1) is a Forbes contributor article, and I don't see anything that describes the author as a subject-matter-expert—just other Forbes articles and blogs. 2) is a self-published piece hosted by Meta, and 3) I cannot access. 4. As an interview is a primary source. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail (2019 American film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A little local filmmaker is promoting himself stuff in Herald Community Newspapers but nothing else. Awards are not major. Showing at festivals is not notability. Reviews listed are from two pay for review sites (Take 2 Indie Review - "SHORT FILM REVIEW – $55", Indie Shorts Mag, for >20minute film prices start from $59.99. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable student film. Of the coverage by independent sources, both reviews are from unreliable publications, the Herald articles read as local-person-wins-award, and neither of the awards it won would meet WP:NFO. Can't find any other coverage that would help this meet WP:NFILM. hinnk (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. hinnk (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the filmmaker's page survives it could potentially redirect there, but that looks to be a big IF. I've done a big rundown of the sourcing on the AfD talk page. Ultimately the only halfway usable sources are two articles from a local paper and an award from a small, indie film festival of dubious notability (Long Island International Film Festival). Assuming that the film festival is notable then the award could count towards notability, but wouldn't be enough on its own to pass NFILM. This doesn't really show a good depth of coverage or that the movie passes NFILM. I don't want to automatically assume that the article creator has a COI, but this does appear to be a case of someone puffing claims to make a non-notable film look more notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I want to stress that if this is the director or someone else with a COI, you have placed the film festival's article at risk because now there will be more eyes on it - so in an attempt to promote this director you have potentially reduced the visibility of an independent, small film festival. This is one of the more frustrating aspects of AfD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be unambiguously self-promotion, along with the article on the film's director. Barry Wom (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The film received some festival recognition and minor coverage, the depth and independence of that coverage appear limited. Under WP:NFILM, short films require significant attention from reliable, independent sources to establish notability, and that threshold doesn’t seem to be met here.--Unclethepoter (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable student film reviews are from unreliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable student film with non-notable reviews-for-pay. DoubleCross (‡) 17:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable film. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per @Unclethepoter. Eulersidentity (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of centaurs (small Solar System bodies) with permission from re-lister. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(679997) 2023 RB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable object that does not have any scientific studies that focus on it individually (see Google Scholar and NASA ADS). The only striking detail about this object according to this article is the fact it will make a very close approach to Saturn in 2201, but that is not documented in NASA-JPL's orbit database website and the close approach event has high uncertainties. The the encounter was identified via NASA-JPL's ephemeris service, but since there's no other source documenting this, it counts as original research unfortunately. This fails astronomical object notability guidelines at WP:NASTRO. This should be redirected to List of centaurs (small Solar System bodies). Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 22:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As the author of the article, I am fine with a re-direct. -- Kheider (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, per nom (and thank you Kheider for commenting). Fails WP:NASTRO, no WP:SIGCOV. GoldRomean (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest of All Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are maybe two legit entries, GOAT (sports culture) and The Greatest of All Time. Nearly all of the entries are properly (or, in the case of Ms. G.O.A.T., was improperly) listed in Goat (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Greatest of All Time. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems like a cleanup issue, this can be a broad-concept article. --Joy (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to GOAT (sports culture). This is basically a fork of Goat (disambiguation). Metallurgist (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Draftify. It deserves a redirect to G.O.A.T or if it's separate, then draftify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfall2015 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on a redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A reader looking specifically for "Greatest of All Time" doesn't need to be dropped into Goat (disambiguation) with unrelated goat's. There's no obvious redirect target. Feel free to get rid of non-"legit" entries, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.—Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  GOAT (sports culture) Metallurgist (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone else suggested The Greatest of All Time, so it seems this is ambiguous. —Bagumba (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm, that movie does have more page views, so I would not be opposed to that, and then put a for hatnote. But I would be curious to know the click thru data on the disamb page. Metallurgist (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bagumba. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I filled it up with some other entries so now this page makes sense alongside the Goat pageFMSky (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bagumba, improvements, and relevancy. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bagumba.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't think there's a redirect target that will be agreed on given that each person has suggested a different target, but the title is ambiguous as to what it's referring to and there is no clear primary topic, which warrants keeping the disambiguation page. - Aoidh (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie Losique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

nn Canadian TV producer --Altenmann >talk 21:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Women, Television, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete have yet to find any SIGCOV for the subject.Lorraine Crane (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only thing I can find SIGCOV for her is a WP:BLP1E event related to a Ben Affleck interview in 2004, and again in 2017 when the incident went viral again. Apparently the video is quite controversial and goes viral when it resurfaces. She is the interviewer and has defended him after it was taken out of context. Curiously there is nothing in the article that makes note of this event. Nayyn (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has been expanded in these edits with new sources and translated content from the French Wikipedia article. There is a lot SIGCOV available on her, especially French-language news coverage, including coverage of career developments or reviews of her TV programs in Le Journal de Montréal, Canoe.ca, and La Presse, which are now cited in the article. In particular, this in-depth profile from Maclean's magazine and this profile and Nathalie Petrowski's critiques [10][11] in La Presse (in French) are good examples. I'm sure someone can add/translate even more content, but I think this is a good start. Best, Bridget (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC) (edited 11:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep. Article has seen significant improvement to both its referencing and its basic notability claims since time of nomination — as noted, the only real issue here was that her sourcing is disproportionately much more in French than English, meaning a lot of good stuff likely got overlooked. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input on the recent article expansion and its sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. I see several sources with significant coverage now. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 23:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now that the article has been expanded with improved sourcing. ScalarFactor (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant improvements by Bridget. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Source #11 alone satisfies WP:GNG. Hugo Dumas is an extremely popular and very well-known journalist from La Presse. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 22:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of the world's best hospital and medical center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reproducing a list from another publication is a copyright violation. - Eureka Lott 21:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it wasn't, the biased ranking of news agency is hardly worthy of a Wikipedia page. Foxtrot620 (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek is a fairly reputablle news agency, even though "reputable" is a fairly subjective view; Trump even calimed, quite unfairly that CNN, MSNBC, CBS are "fake"news.04:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC) SAaphIrEblUE (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as {{db-copyvio}}. Page has now been edited, so probably does not meet the bar for speedy deletion. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed with the assessment, that it does not have to be deleted. SAaphIrEblUE (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, now you've re-added the list of 100 in full it probably is a copyright violation! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Noted and thanks for the comment. It has been re-edited to reflect the top 10, so as to differentiate substantially from the original top 100.SAaphIrEblUE (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete for copyright violation. Shankargb (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Otherwise most rankings on The issue of copyright violation has been addressed with extensive editing; a ranking by an agency is NOT in itself a copyright violations, if the wordings and sentences are extensively structured differently. Most rankings in Wikipedia would be copyright violations.SAaphIrEblUE (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue of copyright violation has been addressed with extensive editing; a ranking by an agency is NOT in itself a copyright violations, if the wordings and sentences are extensively structured differently. Otherwise most rankings on Wikipedia would be copyright violations.SAaphIrEblUE (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)SAaphIrEblUE (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete WP:NLIST WP:COPYVIO Also not clear the sources are even reliable for this topic. And its poorly written, altho thats a minor factor. Metallurgist (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources are Newsweek and Statista, two fairly reliable media, even though "reliability" is a subjective perspective, Donald Trump called mainstream news media like CNN, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, as "fake" news media and thus unreliable. If the article is poorly written, Wikipedians are always welcome to grammatically improve the article.04:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC) SAaphIrEblUE (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unlike say List of largest hospital campuses, this list would be different depending on the source used. Sahaib (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagreed on deletion. Most lists on Wikipedia are based on at least one ranking eg List_of busiest containerports by Lloyds, and the List of busiest airports by passenger traffic published by the Airports Council International. Thus it's important to provide the ranking references, as the article did, from which the list was made.SAaphIrEblUE (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page has now been extensively edited. As such it no longer qualify for speedy deletion. SAaphIrEblUE (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - reproducing Newsweek's list in full is at least dubious in terms of copyright, and the remaining sources are generally not independent, tending to be press releases that simply parrot the instution's ranking along with a bunch of promotional text. I don't think that this article improves the encyclopedia. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This is a procedural close given that there has been no non-sock participation and the AFD wasn't transcluded properly. Any editor is welcome to renominate this article if they do so properly. I recommend using WP:TWINKLE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I can't find any information about his biography in any sources. All are about the series. Fail to pass notability. As should be delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DivitNation (talk • contribs)

• Note: this nomination badly needs formatting and sorting. Please fix it if this is a serious nomination.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 4 lead roles in notable series, see WP:NACTOR.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All are promotional Times of india promotional articles. Significa_liberdade. Those are not reliable source to establish notable as actor. Couldn't find any other sources. DivitNation (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Requesting @Liz for assistance on formatting and sorting problem. --☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input by non socks please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The current sources are primary to the leagues and clubs Benamma played for and all I could find elsewhere was a short article at [[12]], which is not significant. Let'srun (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Central African Republic, Arkansas, Colorado, Maryland, and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just found [13] which can probably help. Let'srun (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Most of the sources in the article are not independent, but the last one presented by Let's run is. The last two, which cover African national football teams, are also satisfactory in my opinion. Svartner (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Svartner. Geschichte (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources added which show notability. GiantSnowman 18:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. Reading this article I can't fathom what he might just possibly be notable for. WP:ADMASQ for a WP:ROTM businessperson. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Business, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom Laura240406 (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  also the "Power Agent®" with the copyright symbol reads a lot like an advertisement Laura240406 (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Zero evidence of notability of any flavour, just pure vanispamcruftisement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly fails WP:BASIC, no evidence of notability. Baqi:) (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I thought this was the activist guy for a minute and wondering why he was here. This article looks WP:PROMO. Metallurgist (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there is nothing to prove notability. 🄻🄰 15:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Per sources undisputed in discussion 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hannon does not appear to be notable outside of his involvement with the band Tesla. The article had been a redirect to Tesla (band) but has recently been edited by an apparent COI editor. All sourcing is primary (Hannon's or Tesla's own websites), Wikipedia pages (in English and Spanish) and interviews. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Hannon has released over 6 solo albums in his career and is currently active outside of Tesla. Most recently he has an interview in the July 2025 edition of Vintage Guitar Magazine about his solo career. Vintage Guitar magazine July 2025 I agree that the wiki article needs better independent citation but should not be deleted or redirected. Guitarcritic (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect to Tesla (band). Agreed that this article isn't notable and sources are mainly primary. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not only is Frank Hannon one of the constant members of Tesla, but the fact that he has also released albums as a solo artist makes him notable outside of the band. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @UndergroundMan3000: Only if the solo albums he's released have become notable in themselves. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article absolutely needs to be cleaned up, with too many autobiographical sources, but that is a different issue than his notability. His solo career outside of Tesla has received sufficient coverage to merit a separate article here, but it should be boiled down to basic facts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can those arguing to keep the article please identify specific sources with sufficient coverage to establish notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Sources already used in current footnotes #10 and #12 are sufficient for his general solo career, while [14], [15], [16], [17] mention various albums/songs and should be enough to support a stub article. But as I already said above, a lot of junk must be removed from the article as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that is about his solo career so that a seperate article about him is justified in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to have enough notability outside of Tesla FMSky (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article is very out of date and I'm not seeing the sourcing to confirm even basic details about its longevity and ownership. I can't find any coverage of this paper at all, even under its (potentially many) alternate names. The acquisitions are tough to follow... it may be owned by Lake Norman Publications now, after stints with McElvy Media Group (maybe?) and others. The best evidence I can find is LinkedIn reports from former news editors who seem to now work at Norman. I hate deleting news publications, but this content is inaccurate and I can't even find press releases or acquisition announcements to verify it. An enterprising editor may be able to find more coverage for a more prominent iteration of this magazine or its parent publisher, whoever that currently is. Suriname0 (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and North Carolina. Suriname0 (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Current references are limited to player profile pages and do not establish notability. Icem4k (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icem4k (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What is the point of this article? Geschichte (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, what is really the point of any article other than availability of information? Ike Lek (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please consider not wasting the project's time with inovcations of guidelines that became extinct several years ago, typical last-resort arguments such as "information should be available", etc. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Request for Information - Does anyone know what his commonly used Malay name is (preferably in multiple scripts)? Ike Lek (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find anything beyond basic profile pages Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Same. Maybe WP:TOOSOON, but right now it obviously fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sainik School, Ghorakhal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:GNG ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 17:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Uttarakhand. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 17:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to find any Significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG for for a school. Sooterout (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas H. Weidemeyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to be entirely promotional and resume-like. Amigao (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, New York, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete borderline A7 and likely listed from one of the sources as it read like a company bio. Other sourcing identified didn't show any other path to notability Star Mississippi 21:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - overly promotional; we are not LinkedIn. FWIW, a family member of mine works for UPS as a line manager for them, and past employers of mine had contracts with Waste Management, but neither of us were direct reports. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non notable subject Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 20:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appears to be entirely promotional with potential COI concerns. Amigao (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Lebanon. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Poorly written, but subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Parliament of Lebanon (1 2). I don't think it rises to the level of WP:TNT. Curbon7 (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly notable, but also clearly political propaganda. It's obviously word for word translated from Arabic, grammar mistakes included. I started the process of copy editing and tagged it. You all can do the rest. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As Curbon7 and Bearian have noted, cleanup is needed to address the COI/Promo issues, but the subject clearly passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Parliament of Lebanon. Sal2100 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Parliament of Lebanon.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg A. Mukhanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to be entirely promotional. Amigao (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep WP:SK3, invalid nomination. The article appears to be purely factual; stating facts that happen to be positive is not promotional, and being promotional is not itself a valid deletion rationale. More, the nomination statement does not address any notability criteria at all, and Mukhanov's IEEE Fellow status passes notability through WP:PROF#C3 and is explicitly cited by WP:PROF as an example of the sort of society fellowship that passes that criterion. He also has strong citation counts on Google Scholar [18], enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

UTC)

• Speedy Keep Absolutely an invalid nomination. Clearly meets WP:NPROF and the rationale presented has no basis in fact. Qflib (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as invalid nomination. Zero promotional content in the article. A bit CV-like, but that's nothing that can't be fixed through editing. See WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow/Speedy keep WP:PROF#C3 for IEEE Fellow -- nominator is asked to familiarize themselves with relevant notability guidelines before making further nominations. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:PROF#C3. Sal2100 (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Trout Nom and Speedy Keep. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. As indicated by others, to overturn a unanimous AfD keep consensus (let alone less than two months ago), the nomination would need to be much more thorough and persuasive, directly addressing the arguments and sources in the previous AfD. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Tunisia. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article survived its first nomination only in May, albeit seemingly on the existence of sources that, since that nomination, still have not been added to the article. (Meanwhile, the most significant editing since then has been from a new user trying to add more non-RS and even the official description of one of the company's games—which I've requested revdel for—all of which have been reverted out.) I have no opinion on anything more than that, but it does show that sources identified as reliable in AfDs should be added to the article ASAP to avoid future renominations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep No acknowledgement of why the previous AfD's sources were not sufficient, suggests that it was made in error without checking the previous AfD history. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. The nominator should have used the sources given in the previous AfD to improve the article instead of nominating it less than 2 months later. Ike Lek (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article was nominated for deletion in May 2025 and survived with a majority of keep votes. Nominating it for deletion again just two month later doesn’t seem like a good idea. Baqi:) (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amigao: Have you read the previous AFD? IgelRM (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the sources WP:NEXIST to establish notability per the comments above and previous AFDs. They just need to be added into the article, and WP:THEREISNORUSH. -2pou (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FC United of Wrexham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Club are of no significance and have never played at a level of notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveAlbatross37 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't trust the nominator, I believe they maybe a WP:SOCK. Govvy (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's stick to discussing the notability of the club instead of making accusations about the nominator without evidence.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The coverage is mainly due to celebrities helping the club with money. In my opinion, this is not what is needed to confirm the notability of a football club. Antoine le Deuxième (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are multiple articles focused solely on this football club from reliable sources (BBC, SKY News, Nation.Cymru, other local news, etc..) that are independent of the subject. They are not passing mentions. The coverage is verifiable and sustained over the past few years and cited in the article. To respond to Antoine le Deuxième's opinion above, the reasons why an entity has recieved coverage, do not figure into what is considered notable for weighing up notability according to WP:GNG. Nayyn (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist for assessment of sources identified by Nayyn. Pinging @GiantSnowman: as requested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS, nothing there looks to indicate notability. GiantSnowman 20:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Nayyn. This team already has a few news sources solely about it and will probably get more in the future. I have no idea how NOTNEWS applies to this since this team has more in-depth coverage ([19], [20], [21], than higher level clubs. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Gujarat University. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B.K. School of Business Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 14:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Gujarat. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 14:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Gujarat University. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for the merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Gujarat University per Cordless Larry's suggestion. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Gujarat University.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of Edinburgh School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No independent RS on the page. Nothing to suggest this university department has independent notability outwith of University of Edinburgh JMWt (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Philosophy, Schools, Psychology, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Not notable for a standalone article and relevant content on its existence can be merged/added to the main university article. Coldupnorth (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be deleted. Lilith 908 (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacking third party sources to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rakhyut Mid-Air Collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This seems like a normal incident that shouldn't have its own article, per WP:AIRCRASH. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, and Oman. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Tragic accident, but there appears to be no lasting coverage that contributes to notability. Not to mention that this might be the most poorly cited article I've seen short of one with no sources at all (four sources right back to Wikipedia, and one is to an online forum?). nf utvol (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not going to cast a vote on this AfD, but I think it should be noted by those who do that this article was created and nominated for deletion less than 3 hours apart. (This article does have issues with how it's written and referenced regardless.) 11WB (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The subject seems to be notable for only one event, a court case started by the subject where another company was making defamatory claims about them. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 17:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 17:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No valid secondary sourcing. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 13:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goulburn Street, Hobart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Being named after someone notable doesn't really add to notability. No SIGCOV about the actual street. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment noting that the person its named after live in a separate colony a couple of thousand miles away. A quick trove show that the street has more than a name linked to notable events like a murder there in 1862. Unrevelling what is about a street and what is linked to it and how it connects articles as well as places is important too. Gnangarra 15:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you have found sources, please list them. LibStar (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nothing I found in searches indicates that this is notable. TarnishedPath^talk 12:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigns in support of Afghan activists and human rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This appears to just be a coatrack for information about post-Taliban human rights campaigns in Afghanistan. The existence of such a collective phenomenon is not supported in reliable sources—sources exist, but this doesn't appear to be a "real" topic. Title also would need to specify post-Taliban human rights campaigns, but that's an issue for if the article is kept. Maybe this can be merged to Human rights in Afghanistan. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 16:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 15:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Jung-won (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined PROD. Only 13 professional appearances, fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and South Korea. Svartner (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. After conducting a WP:BEFORE, I couldn't found significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject to meet general notability guidelines and significant coverage. Thus fails to demonstrate notability. Fade258 (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect‎ to The Clash (TV program). ✗plicit 14:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Clash season 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reality show seasons with references mostly from WP:PRIMARY sources, with majority of the article being unreferenced. This was originally WP:PRODded but that was removed by the page creator. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason as above:

The Clash season 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Clash season 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Clash season 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Clash season 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Clash season 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Clash season 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Howard the Duck (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to The Clash (TV program) I think it not necessarily to create every season of this TV Show. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fan-compiled, unfiltered, and completely unreferenced (or poorly referenced in some season) details on each episode. Sources don't tell how each season is notable. AstrooKai (Talk) 13:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and also happy with a redirect being left - nothing to suggest these seasons themselves are notable or needing their own articles. Lacks sigcov of the seasons as concepts. CoconutOctopus talk 17:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does totally not need to be deleted as it details all that happens during the competition, as it considered true based on the full episodes during its airing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.62.25.50 (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our concerns are not about the truthfulness of the articles, but rather whether they are notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. AstrooKai (Talk) 09:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the season was not notable at all and the article use mostly on primary source and fancruft. This is not fandom wiki, this is Wikipedia and there is a standard criteria if the article needs to be create as a standalone article. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to notability concerns. The articles are better suited in a fandom/ wikia rather than en.wiki --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dont Delete

Here's a breakdown of the types of sources found and how they support keeping a standalone article (or at least, strong content within the main article):

1. Critical Reception & Ratings Performance:

"GMA's The Clash Endures Poor Reviews and Bad Ratings After Two Weeks | From the Tube" (July 17, 2018): This is a critical piece discussing the show's initial performance. It explicitly mentions:

Ratings: "During the weekend of July 7, 'The Clash'’s ratings were at 19.4 and 19.6% on Saturday and Sunday respectively." It also compares them to a rival show ("Your Face Sounds Familiar Kids"). This is significant coverage of the season's commercial performance.

Critical Reception: "The GMA singing competition show is off to a poor start, both critically and commercially." It details viewer complaints about "bad lighting, shaky camera angles, awful sound quality and fake audience reactions." It even points blame at the director. This is independent critical analysis of the season's quality.

Social Media Impact: It notes "overwhelmingly negative reception to the program muted this achievement" despite trending on Twitter.

"The Kids' Choice' Beats 'The Clash' in National TV Ratings - Starmometer" (September 4, 2018): This article explicitly states "The show recorded a national TV rating of 29% last Saturday versus 'The Clash' that only got 18.9%," confirming direct ratings comparisons for Season 1.

2. Impact on Contestants' Careers / Music Industry:

"Garrett Bolden shares how 'The Clash' changed his music career | GMA Entertainment" (January 19, 2022): While from the network itself (GMA Entertainment), it discusses the impact of "The Clash Season 1" on a specific finalist's career, Garrett Bolden, who signed with GMA Music after the show. This shows the show's tangible output and influence.

"Mga kanta ng 'The Clash' season 1 graduates, available na sa 'Spotify' | GMA Music" (March 27, 2020): This indicates that music from Season 1 participants was officially released and made available on major streaming platforms, demonstrating a lasting output of the season.

3. General Discussion/Historical Context:

Reddit threads (e.g., r/ChikaPH): While not a reliable source for factual claims, the discussions (like "I remember I enjoyed watching the 1st season of The Clash. But was disappointed at the winner. IMO I still think the runner-ups were better than the grand champion. Pero dahil "favorite" siya ni Ai-Ai kaya siguro bakit siya nanalo. lol.") indicate public discussion and even controversies surrounding the winner of Season 1, which could be mentioned if reliably sourced elsewhere.

What this means for the AfD:

The presence of these sources significantly strengthens the argument against deleting "The Clash season 1" and redirecting it. They show that:

The season itself received significant coverage beyond just airing. There was public commentary, critical analysis of its production quality, and reporting on its ratings performance. This addresses the "lack of significant coverage of the seasons as concepts" point.

It had a demonstrable impact: The careers of its contestants and the release of their music are direct results that were covered by secondary sources.

It faced specific critical reception: The initial poor reviews and ratings, and comparisons to rival shows, are notable aspects of that particular season's history.

Given this information, I would now argue that "The Clash season 1" does appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and should likely not be deleted and redirected.

The existing article can and should be improved by incorporating these independent secondary sources to substantiate claims about critical reception, ratings, and post-show impact of the contestants. The concerns about primary sources and "fancruft" are valid, but they suggest the article needs improvement and proper referencing, rather than outright deletion. If these sources are properly used, the article could clearly demonstrate why Season 1 is notable enough for its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.27.8 (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Starmometer is not a WP:RS.
2. GMA News is not a WP:RS for subjects about GMA Network as it is WP:PRIMARY.
3. Reddit, by your admittance, and in fact is a bad source and fails WP:V. (See WP:REDDIT).

Howard the Duck (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Survivor: Heroes vs. Healers vs. Hustlers as a valid ATD. Owen× ☎ 18:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]