Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 27

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      July 2 (Wed)      July 1 (Tue)      June 30 (Mon)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Chen Zhehan (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 sources to support notability Stvbastian (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and China. Stvbastian (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chen Yongrui. --Iiii I I I (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But the article fails basic critera WP:SPORTBASIC. Stvbastian (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If every article ever created through passing NBAD gets quick deletion unless GNG is proved immediately, then what's the point of NBAD? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  After NFOOTY was thrown out, I believe there is little to no point to any of the sport SNGs. All NBAD says is that "coverage is likely to exist". It's not a policy or guideline. Geschichte (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• del no coverage. --Altenmann >talk 20:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the policy to only renew twice? It should have been closed at this point. Goodboyjj (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am not seeing enough articles to establish notability.Goodboyjj (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Vivrette (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 originally nominated this article for speedy deletion [1] which was turned down. I believe this article fails WP:GNG. Apart from three references, all of the rest are TikTok links which are not reliable for sourcing. The other three links are [2] which is WordPress and not reliable and it doesn't seem to mention the subject. I can't link to the next reference as it won't open for me, could be a GDPR thing). The third reference is [3] which doesn't mention the subject. I've carried out WP:BEFORE again (as I did when I nominated for speedy and can't find anything that is reliable or substantive. The amount of followers doesn't confer notability. Knitsey (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No coverage at all found in media, either using the person's name or Postman. Zero hits that aren't social media. Nearly all sources in the article are primary, with 19 being the only one that's even close, but it's not nearly enough. Zero hints of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  https://www.tiktok.com/@postmanforevermore He is a very prominent figure in the right wing scene on TikTok and Instagram. 2600:1700:36B0:2E30:1588:45F1:17EA:43DB (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We need media that talks about him, not simply the platform promoting the streamer. Oaktree b (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject does not pass WP:GNG as TikTok cannot be considered a reliable source. The first source appears to be written by the subject and is not coverage. I can't find any references that are both reliable and independent. Nixleovel (He/They) (Talk • Contribs) 23:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No I'm not Postman. BlackpillEnthusiast77 (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have to scroll down to February 2025 on ADL. It's mentioned in the reference. 2600:1700:36B0:2E30:1588:45F1:17EA:43DB (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have to scroll down to February 2025 on ADL. It's mentioned in the reference. 2600:1700:36B0:2E30:1588:45F1:17EA:43DB (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That also appears a trivial mention. Oaktree b (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out ip. Looking at that entry, I would agree with Oaktree that it is a passing mention. Knitsey (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The list of banned Tiktok accounts, as if that is noteworthy, encyclopedic material, sinks Wikipedia to new lows. - Poof positive (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article subject fails WP:GNG. There is also a lack of SiGCOV and as others have mentioned, TikTok is not a WP:RS. Zach^H007 16:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. KnowDeath (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless ACTUAL sources are found. The majority of the article has a "source" of TikTok, which is NOT a reliable source. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 02:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above replies. All the sources are from TikTok and there's no indication of notability sufficient enough to warrant a whole article. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails SIGCOV and GNG as mentioned by nom and others. This does not stand to be kept. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Companion Pieces: Fantasy Furnishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A TTRPG product that does not appear to be notable. There is a single short "capsule review" of the product included in the article, but that is not enough to pass the WP:GNG on its own, and searches are not bringing up any kind of significant coverage (or any kind of coverage at all) in reliable sources on either the product or the company that produced it. As the company that made it is also non-notable and has no article, I cannot find any valid WP:ATD for this non-notable product. Rorshacma (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Games. Rorshacma (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Who are "The Companions" who published this? Is this part of a series? Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They seem to have been a small, short-lived company that published a few TTRPG books and accessories in the early-to-mid eighties. But like I said, I had trouble finding any significant coverage on the company in reliable sources - this is just from their listing on RPGgeek. Rorshacma (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Is this a joke? I feel like anyone who thinks this article is worthy of an encyclopedia is actually pranking us. One source. Wow. - Poof positive (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy or redirect somewhere. User:BOZ created many similar articles, many are borderline or better notable, but this one has just a single source. That's sadly not enough to warrant a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I'm not sure where this would be discussed in a publisher, author, or list article either. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy, when possible a userfy/draftify option is a good option as an ATD. There are scant sources from what I see here, but then the subject matter is not a contentious BLP or I am not sure precisely which N guideline would apply. In such a case, a draftify/userfy option is wise. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A series of Doctor Who audio dramas. The current article is basically sourced entirely to PRIMARY sources, tabloids, and fan sites, and a search yielded nothing but trivial mentions of the location as mentioned in The Robots of Death, with no actual discussion of the audio drama series. I'd suggest a redirect to List of Doctor Who audio releases#Kaldor City, where these are listed, or a plot summary merge to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Sandminer Robots, where the Robots are discussed in-universe. As it stands there is no coverage for this series, and is nowhere near close to meeting the WP:GNG. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Radio, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I vaguely remember looking at this a while back, and failing to see how it meets WP:GNG. I see it has not improved. It's just plot summary and some catalogue info. Seems no reliable source noticed this to provide us with reception/analysis (or at least we haven't found it yet). Redirect to the target suggested per WP:ATD-R. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect where? it's using elements from the British TV series Doctor Who and Blake's 7. We cannot just redirect to one, since it has elements from two shows. Goodboyjj (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am not seeing enough articles to establish notability. Many sources are primary.Goodboyjj (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotional, sparsely referenced, author refuses AFC review. What refs that do exist fail WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm fairly sure the content issues are because the article was generated using an LLM. No comment on the rest yet, may evaluate later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah yes, GPTZero says 100% AI. I should have checked that first. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Definitely not viable for mainspace, is as, and seeing that it has been moved in and out of draft I don't think that "draftify" will be a solution. I have no idea if it is AI-generated, but in any case it does not have sufficient sources to be kept; it reads like OR. Lamona (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. I feel this page needs a little work, as many sentences do not have citations. However in addition to existing citations I am seeing a lot more coverage on it in Google, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.Goodboyjj (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep . Per the above evaluation by @Goodboyjj , several sources support the subject and are reliable. I also agree that the page needs improvement, specially if AI used. Another option is to draft it so someone or the original creator can improve.Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

F A Sumon (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:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Sources are all unbylined churnalism, unreliable, or mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh. CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – F A Sumon is a widely recognized Bangladeshi singer with multiple viral tracks and label releases. While the article still needs formatting and additional citations, his notability is evident: his music is released under major labels (G-Series, CD Choice), has over 83M+ YouTube views (e.g., "Ghum Parani Bondhu"), and has been featured on national TV and covered by major Bangladeshi media. These factors strongly support notability under WP:MUSICBIO. I'm open to improvements, but deletion is premature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaddamHosenSaad (talk • contribs)

Please do not use AI to generate comments on Wikipedia. You state it has been significantly improved and "no longer warrants deletion" but there has been no improvement since the deletion discussion began. As far as the high-quality sourcing, can you provide links to the specific sourcing you feel shows notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please strike through your comments as opposed to amending them. It will throw people off as my question was specific to your original comment, not your amended one. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The references are not great (very short, almost advertorial) and the Youtube views don't convince me (how many are bot driven), at least the references are about the artist. I would say give this article a few months, look on the Bengali Wikipedia or ask some experts to clean it up and if no improvement is made, another AFD might be needed. There is a possibility that this article can improve, but in order to meet notability requirements, we have to see that the improvement can happen. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting !keep as an WP:ATD? If you can show WP:HEY, I would be glad to withdraw my nomination but a WP:BEFORE tells me that no amount of editing can show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there would need to be three to five references of a much less dubious standard for me to believe that the notability threshold is clearly met. Right now, things are kind of murky. If that can't be done in a few months, my opinion would change to a delete. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The references seem legitimate, although I am no expert at Bangladeshi music. I don't want to exhibit a Western bias, either. - Poof positive (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I considered nominating this when I was doing some basic cleanup on it (if you think it is bad now, you should have seen it before). I didn't bring it to AfD because albums Dorodiya,[4] Rongila Re,[5] Tor Lagi Re,[6] and Iti Tomar Priyo[7] were released on G-Series (record label). So the topic meets WP:MUSICIAN criterion #5. Most of the other things the author mentions (long career, number of albums/credits, YouTube subscribers, Facebook followers, pages on Spotify, Apple Music, etc.) have no bearing whatsoever on notability as Wikipedia defines it. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maninder Buttar (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 musician, fails Wp:GNG and Wp:NMUSIC.

The sources are mainly unreliable and trivial. Zuck28 (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, India, Haryana, and Punjab. Zuck28 (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject meets criteria of WP:MUSIC: his songs have charted (e.g., "Sakhiyaan" with over 600 million views), he has been nominated for a notable award (PTC Punjabi Music Awards), and received substantial coverage in reliable sources, including recognition from Spotify. Notability is well-established. Cinelatina (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. assuming the songs have charted as is stated, it will meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Goodboyjj (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MixSingh (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 musician. Fails Wp:GNG and Wp:NMUSIC. No SIGCOV is available, just passing mentions and routine PR articles for the releases. There are two award nominations as well but both of them are non-notable and just nominations. Also, the article's creator was blocked as a sock and UPE. Zuck28 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Authors, Bands and musicians, Music, India, and Punjab. Zuck28 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This biography is far better-sourced than most of the other Articles for deletion, and I am opposed to a Western bias of deletion of non-Western topics. - Poof positive (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an invalid argument. See Wp:WHATABOUT, WP:TDLI,and Wp:POV. Zuck28 (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability is demonstrated under WP:MUSIC. Subject has produced and composed for widely recognized artists and songs (e.g., "Sakhiyaan", "Sorry", "Saara India") released under independent labels. His production work has received broad exposure and coverage, confirming his significance in the Punjabi music scene. Cinelatina (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  None of the points you mentioned makes him pass Wp:NMUSIC. Zuck28 (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ndjibu N'Golomingi (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:SPORTSCRIT because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Let'srun (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Since there isn't a clear redirect target. Svartner (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per LibStar, the subject fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and so the article should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In addition to all of the above, I couldn't find any evidence that he meets WP:NCYC. Antoine le Deuxième (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

King's Wood, Corby (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 refs on the page. Nothing much else found to suggest notability JMWt (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This nature reserve is referenced by Natural England and the Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire. It is notable as a designated nature reserve. "Nothing much else found" is a vague criterion for deletion and incorrect as a matter of fact. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are independent sources. Both are involved in managing/owning the site. JMWt (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the Trust manages the site. Natural England is the regulator and the site is mentioned briefly in their database of all local nature reserves. JMWt (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another independent source. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local nature reserves are designated as such by local authorities, not nationally. NGEO: Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level ... are presumed to be notable. Dege31 (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the independent coverage is minimal, or in passing. There is little that this article adds that is not already in the list, and I moved the only substantial reference which had been missing. Dege31 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is not correct that there is minimal independent coverage. It is substantial. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, might I suggest you have a read of Wikipedia:SIGCOV. As the examples there show, short mentions in passing are not substantial. So in my opinion, newspaper articles which are not directly on topic but only mention the reserve in passing are not substantive. Short news articles which are on topic but are simply notices are not normally considered a sign of notability.

And that ultimately is where we disagree. There is coverage, but nothing that says this nature reserve meets the inclusion standard. If we were to allow this one, then we would have to include all the other thousands of English local nature reserves on the same basis. As far as I see, this isn't an SSSI or NNR, it's not an archaeological or geological reserve. Nobody has written a published book about it, nobody has used it as a site for their ecological studies. It's just not that important. JMWt (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are passing mentions which I did not add, but cumulatively support notability. Coverage in the database of Natural England of local nature reserves on its own establishes notability, and there are thousands of articles on them. I see no reason to single out this article as not notable. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's do some source analysis.

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20161221235750/http://www.lnr.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/lnr/lnr_details.asp?C=30&N=&ID=244			Generic info in a database bolstered with a paragraph of 'what to see'	? Unknown
https://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/people/north-northamptonshire-council-awarded-grant-by-government-as-part-of-its-woodland-creation-accelerator-fund-3938810			Passing mention	✘ No
https://magic.defra.gov.uk/home.htm			This is a map	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20161222000758/http://www.wildlifebcn.org/reserves/kings-wood	This is an article on the website of the Wildlife Trusts		Database profile	✘ No
https://www.rockinghamforest.org.uk/nnc-woodlands	Funded by North Northamptonshire Council	Appears to be tour guides	Passing mention	✘ No
https://www.wildlifebcn.org/nature-reserves/kings-wood-and-rammamere-heath	This is an article on the website of the Wildlife Trusts			✘ No
https://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/political-opinion-independent-candidate-launches-fresh-campaign-for-corbys-kingswood-ward-5072782		Even if the reserve was mentioned, this looks like a press release	The reserve is not even mentioned	✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9qvjv3lqe5o			King's Wood is only relevant as belonging to the set of relevant parks, not in itself	✘ No
https://www.northnorthants.gov.uk/corby-woodland-project/kings-wood-nature-reserve	This is an article on the website of the North Northamptonshire Council		Generic, basic info	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dege31 (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep were the subject of two books by Jeffrey A. Best in the 1980s which the 2020 book "Trees and Woodlands in the British Lands" calls "mighty." I cannot access them or the book "The Royal Forests of Northamponshire" from the 1960s, and at least one research article on trees near road construction from the 1950s. Also some newspaper articles [11] - I'm sure there would probably be more if I could do a historical record search as I see lots of mentions over a period of time. If this is GEOLAND, then we're clearly there, GNG is more marginal but there's enough here to write an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 08:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand your comment. You are basing it on two books you can't access? What is the subject of the books you reference? JMWt (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Basing a comment on snippets of books to which you do not have full access to is valid. The article has pages devoted to it in two independent reliable sources, which are cited in the article. There are 7 million articles in English Wikipedia and most of them have problems with uncited statements, unreliable sources and statments not in the sources. Unlike this majority, the article is fully and correctly referenced. It also has more evidence of notability than at least a million articles. I find it puzzling that editors think that they can best improve Wikipedia by devoting so much time to making a case for deleting this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to know the names of the authors and the subject of the book. That's not too much to ask when someone asserts that they're enough to show that the notability criteria have been met. That's it. JMWt (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears to be a reference to "King's Wood Corby: Description, History, Explanation of Habitats and Wildlife" and "King's Wood Corby- local nature reserve: Evaluation and proposed management plan" Dege31 (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, those appear to be publications from a Higher Education college (which ultimately became the University of Northampton). Without actually being able to see them, we don't know if they are RS, peer reviewed or anything else. Simply knowing that they exist isn't enough. JMWt (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James P. Howard (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 seems to cite very, very few reliable sources. In fact, most of its references are self-published sources, such as the subject's LinkedIn profile and many documents uploaded to the subject's personal website. The excessive detail and sole focus on the accomplishments of the subject also makes me feel like it's advertising—the bulleted list of degrees right at the top certainly doesn't help.

As such, I don't feel like this article really fulfills notability guidelines for people, per WP:BIO. I tried looking up some other, more reliable , or even just secondary sources on this subject, and I didn't see any. The subject does not seem to fulfill any of the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, and certainly just running for delegate once and serving on the Howard County Board of Appeals (a board not even mentioned in any other Wikipedia article) does not qualify this article for notability per WP:NPOL. In general, while I don't have anyway of knowing this, it feels very much like this was written by the subject of the article or someone very close to the subject.

User:Dawkin_Verbier also mentioned similar problems on this article's talk page, including its promotional tone, detail, and use of unreliable sources. Also, I'm not sure it was about the same person, but back in 2007, there was a "James P. Howard" that was speedy deleted for lack of notability.

This is the first time I've ever nominated an article for deletion, so I hope I did everything right and that I'm not completely just off-base! Maptrainguy (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, Mathematics, and Maryland. Maptrainguy (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at the very least needs a complete rewrite. The list of degrees makes it seem like a job application, and i'm not sure what the coat of arms is for. Notaoffensivename (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Notability is well-established; article needs cleanup, not deletion

James P. Howard II clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for academics and public figures. His academic output includes several books with reputable publishers, such as two editions of the Handbook of Military and Defense Operations Research (2020, 2024), Computational Methods for Numerical Analysis with R (2017), and Socioeconomic Effects of the National Flood Insurance Program (2016). These are not minor self-published works, but peer-reviewed or editorially curated volumes from recognized presses, reflecting substantial scholarly engagement.

His published research spans topics such as phonetic-spelling algorithms, blockchain systems, and cybersecurity, appearing in venues like IEEE Security & Privacy and the Journal of Statistical Software. This demonstrates consistent contribution to his fields. Additionally, he has received multiple fellowships from professional bodies, including the British Computer Society (FBCS, 2020), the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications (FIMA, 2022), and the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (FSA Scot, 2025). These are not merely affiliations; they represent peer-recognized standing.

That said, the current state of the article is suboptimal. A recent change transformed the education section into a list-heavy format, likely intended to support inclusion on the perpetual student page. This is not encyclopedic in tone and should be rewritten into a more integrated narrative. Moreover, some biographical material appears to have been removed, reducing clarity and context. These are content and formatting issues, not grounds for deletion. Columbia21044 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - reads like a puff piece, without much substantial content. From what I can tell, he's a low-level politician who has taught a few classes and written a few books. Clearly fails WP:NPOL, and does not seem to pass WP:NPROF or WP:AUTHOR either. There might be some saving grace combining everything under WP:GNG, but unless there are some unmentioned major awards or heaps of RS praise for his writing or teaching, I can't find it. - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:NACADEMIC, the receipt of selective fellowships from major professional societies is sufficient to establish notability. Howard is a Fellow of the British Computer Society, the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, and others. These honors are selective, peer-reviewed, and meet criterion #3 under the guideline. That alone satisfies the notability threshold, regardless of whether WP:NPOL or WP:AUTHOR applies. Columbia21044 (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You forgot the second part of that sentence on WP:NACADEMIC, "as substantiated through reliable sources"... that section is completely unsourced, do you have reliable sources to prove his fellowship(s)? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The subject is listed in the public membership directory of the British Computer Society (BCS), which is available at: https://www.bcs.org/membership-and-registrations/register-of-bcs-members/
  • He also appears in the public list of Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (FSA Scot), viewable at: https://fellows.socantscot.org/members-directory/fellows-public-list/?ind=u&mf=0%3Djames%261%3Dhoward

  The third fellowship, with the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications (IMA), does not appear to have a public register. However, the subject's FIMA designation is also referenced within the FSAScot entry, which provides indirect verification from a recognized independent source. Columbia21044 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So, only 3 of the 5 can be sourced? - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Three fellowships were cited under WP:NACADEMIC #3. These fellowships meet the selective and substantiated test under WP:NACADEMIC. The article needs cleanup, but notability is adequately supported. Columbia21044 (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am very, very sceptical that any of the fellowships referenced above are enough to meet WP:NPROF#C3. C3 is for fellowships that are reserved as highly selective honours for experts in a field, which are generally elected positions that are limited to a certain percentage of the organisation's membership. It doesn't apply to organisations that have a general membership tier that they call "Fellows". Going through each of them:
  • Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland - a quote from the president on their website says "Becoming a Fellow is not an onerous task. It’s not for experts. It’s for people to develop their interests and anyone who’s got an interest or a passion for the past is welcome to join and the process of becoming a Fellow is relatively straightforward."
  • Fellows of the British Computer Society - has some basic criteria, but appears to just be a paid tier of membership that does not meet the standard of being a highly selective honour.
  • Fellows of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications - again, has some basic criteria, but is just a tier of membership.
  • Fellows of the Cybernetics Society - again, just a tier of membership. The title that they reserve as a highly selective honour is Honorary Fellow
  • Senior member of the IEEE - multiple AfDs have found that this is not sufficient to meet NPROF#C3, e.g. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bin Xie (researcher)

I'd also note that it would also be utterly extraordinary for someone to meet the NPROF standard of making a highly impactful scholarly contribution in such a diverse set of fields. This set of "fellowships" in five extremely different fields and the long list of degrees (2 undergrads, 5 masters and a PhD) makes it pretty obvious that this is someone looking for postnominals to put after their name, not someone who is a distinguished scholar in any particular field. MCE89 (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the IEEE content, due to there being no James Howard listed in their membership at https://services27.ieee.org/fellowsdirectory/keywordsearch.html?keyword=Howard - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both the BCS and IMA fellowships are selective, peer-reviewed distinctions, not paid membership tiers. **FBCS** requires nomination by two current Fellows, evidence of sustained leadership or impact in computing, and approval by the Membership Committee. The process is detailed in a 27-page official guidance document: https://www.bcs.org/media/4b1nq0dg/bcs-fellow-application-guidance.pdf **FIMA** similarly involves nomination and review by committee, with requirements for distinguished achievement in mathematics or its applications: https://ima.org.uk/membership/fellow-membership/

These are evaluated honors conferred through formal peer review. This level of selectivity clearly meets, if not exceeds, the threshold set by WP:NACADEMIC #3. If that is not sufficient in the eyes of some editors, it is difficult to see what would ever qualify under that criterion, or why the criterion even exists. Columbia21044 (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That BCS fellowship guidance says that their standard for "research" is met if a person is a co-author of a publication that has been cited all of three times (p. 14). That's nothing.

Your link for the IMA fellowship is broken. According to their website, they're looking for several years of respectable work and a letter from the applicant's boss. That's a far cry from any of the examples given in the academic notability guideline. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this isn't an article, it's a c.v. Almost 20 of the sources were created by the subject himself. As an adjunct, he clearly fails the PROF test. The fellowships are vanity awards, little more than participation trophies for talented amateurs. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. In 2025, everyone knows that Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a puff piece. As detailed above, the "fellowships" are not really the kind of highly-selective honors that could justify an encyclopedia article. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Brandt (sportscaster) (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)

Restored previously deleted article; same concerns (notability, sourcing, etc.) May be AI-generated. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Pennsylvania. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SPORTSPERSON. I ran the text through a AI detector (which aren't always accurate) and only small pieces of text were flagged. Notaoffensivename (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: @R2025kt: has edited the article's talk page while logged out. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to have been quite prominent as a broadcaster, see SIGCOV e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. Clearly notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Dave Brandt (sportscaster) is easily notable. See 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
• Keep. Like the others, I did not have to spend much time before finding for myself the numerous reliable secondary sources supporting WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY]. Zach^H007 22:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern culture (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 lacks encyclopedic value as a standalone topic and instead functions as a redundant amalgamation of content more appropriately and comprehensively addressed in other, more coherent articles—namely, Eastern world and Culture of Asia. The article begins by describing "Eastern culture" as an umbrella term for the cultural heritages of the Eastern world. However, this is a circular and unspecific definition. It fails to offer any unifying characteristics or critical analysis that would justify "Eastern culture" as a distinct concept separate from already-existing, better-defined topics. The notion that there is "no singular Eastern culture" undermines the article’s own legitimacy from the outset.

2. Duplicates Existing Articles Much of the article either duplicates or superficially rephrases content found in:

Eastern world – which addresses the geopolitical and historical usage of the term "East."

Culture of Asia – which offers detailed breakdowns of the cultural characteristics of specific Asian regions and nations.

The Eastern culture article merely compiles snippets from those two sources (and others like Eastern religions, Asian cinema, and Asian cuisine) without offering original synthesis, structure, or insight. It effectively operates as an indiscriminate content aggregator, not a curated encyclopedic entry.

3. Arbitrary Scope and Selection The article inconsistently and uncritically lumps together an enormous range of unrelated cultural topics—from Zoroastrianism to Russian cuisine to Japanese cinema—under the vague label of "Eastern."

As such, the article engages in essentialist and Orientalist framing by implying a unified "Eastern" worldview without critical reflection or substantiation.

4. Lack of Reliable Sourcing or Scholarly Cohesion The article does not engage with scholarly literature that critically examines the category of "Eastern culture." It relies instead on broad generalizations and outdated colonial binaries (East vs. West), without citation of academic sources that might justify treating "Eastern culture" as a meaningful analytical category in anthropology, sociology, or cultural studies.

5. Structural and Editorial Issues The structure is heavily list-based and bloated with exhaustive catalogs of regional cuisines, cinema, and religion, most of which are already better developed in separate, dedicated articles. The "Traditions" section is particularly problematic, attempting to summarize all cultural production across half the globe with no prioritization, context, or thematic organization. This bloats the article without enhancing understanding. Hassan697 (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Eastern world (reluctantly, since that article has its own problems, but this seems like a likely search term). The Eastern Culture article is a hopeless mess of OR and SYNTH, to say nothing of its dated Eurocentric bias (as nom pointed out). Not WP-worthy. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, History, Politics, Mythology, Popular culture, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Social science, and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WeirdNAnnoyed. Not sure if anything distinct can be added here. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 04:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect but I prefer culture of Asia. Since culture whatevers should recirect to culture whatever else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to a reasonable target. It's a WP:POVFORK of orientalism. Bearian (talk)|

Gurdaspur District (British Punjab) (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)

Mostly unsourced, with nearly all of the existing citations being WP:RAJ-era censuses, thus violating WP:NOTDATABASE. Most of the actual prose is duplicated by Gurdaspur district; if necessary, merging as a WP:ATD is an option. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, India, and Punjab. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article is not mostly unsourced also WP:RAJ refers to the caste system whereas the Gurdaspur District (British Punjab) article does not mention caste at all, there is no reference to behaviour, no stereotypes of people it is in the main about the structure and governance of the old district

The article is about a second level division of British India which at some 4.5 million km² was Britain's largest colonial possession. An article about this is not therefore a random collection of information, Gurdaspur was split in 1947 and its boundaries changed, prior to 1947 it was considered worthy of an encyclopaedic entry and the modern district is different to the previous one.

By way of comparison North-West Frontier Province had its name changed to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in 2010 and consequently there are two articles, there's also Military history of the North-West Frontier as well as History of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

It's not random information to have more than one article, it's an encyclopaedic method for helping to clarify information and present it accordingly to the reader, you segment the information for a particular epoch which is useful especially when boundaries have changed.

As for most of the prose is in Gurdaspur district, this does not appear to be the case, other editors have updated with more information but I'd say in this case Gurdaspur district#British Raj should have a link that says main article Gurdaspur District (British Punjab). because this article has much more information about the erstwhile colonial district.

Also while it is understandable that colonial era records should not be used to propagate racial or caste theories this does not apply here - also as a comparison I used the Umdat-ut-Tawarikh as a source for the Mir Painda Khan article, the text is quite critical of him but I omitted that and just used the source text to to help with the chronology of what happened. When it came to the Gurdaspur source texts - there was nothing of that nature to omit anyway.

Pahari Sahib 18:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable as legally-recognized political subdivision. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Colonial-era subdivision that existed from creation of the province in 1849. District was also the most significantly affected subdivision in the province by the Radcliffe Line and partition in 1947. Van00220 (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is no need for the merge. It can remain as a separate article. desmay (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In the case of a WP:POVFORK or in many other cases a merge would make sense, but the subject is sourced adequately and independent of other subject matter to need an article for just this it would seem. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

As a disambiguation page, it is not appropriate because it does not clearly indicate which articles it is meant to disambiguate. Does it refer to West Bank areas in the Oslo II Accord, Palestine (region), West Bank, Palestine, or United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine? None of these articles are titled "Palestinian territories."

As a broad-concept article, it contains many dubious statements for which I have not been able to find reliable sources. Hassan697 (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hassan697 (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONEOTHER (I use this so often, somebody should make a redirect.). All three non-primary topic entries are invalid. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kintsugi (Lana Del Rey song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. No notability on its own. Sricsi (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Sricsi (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : Thin sourcing, one is a review of the song, the other is about the album... I don't see anything else showing notability, not charted, no awards won. I also don't find any sourcing about the song. Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Did You Know That There's a Tunnel Under Ocean Blvd, presently fails NSONG. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the album as above seems fine. The album was nominated for an award, so would be more notable than this song. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Did You Know That There's a Tunnel Under Ocean Blvd as suggested as a viable redirect target. Otherwise does fail WP:NSONG.Iljhgtn (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pithoragarh Depot (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)

Disputed Draftification and AFC Rejection by Grumpylawnchair. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Notwithstanding our function as a gazetteer, references that pass WP:42 are a requirement. No references = no article. Fails WP:V hence WP:GNG 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Uttarakhand. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, none of these sources, nor any that I've been able to locate, pass WP:SIRS; this entity is non-notable. No objection to redirect to Pithoragarh § Transport as a possible ATD. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:LLM garbage. Even if notable it needs a TNT to make it workable. Jumpytoo Talk 17:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jumpytoo, I went ahead and cleaned up the article; perhaps you may want to revisit your !vote for notability. — WeWake (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My vote currently still stands, while you did a good job with the cleanup the sourcing is still the same, and the only source that has direct coverage is the Amar Ujala one, the rest are either primary sources or trivial coverage, so we don't have enough for GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 19:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the sources in the article do not establish notability, and I am also unable to find any more reliable sources. The depot is not notable. Meadowlark (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meadowlark, coverage is not in English language - see my !vote for better search terms. — WeWake (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Are standards for "bus depots" similar to railway stations or stricter? The former, to my understanding, is OK with sufficient verifiable information (to write an article) for it to be in mainspace. If there are fewer/no concerns around notability, I can attempt a full re-write; otherwise, it'll be a wasted effort. WeWake (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the comment "LLM garbage" got my attention since LLMs can generate fake refs that look good. I checked all of these refs; none are fictitious LLM creations. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge (Pithoragarh § Transport): The depot is a critical part of public transportation infrastructure in the state of Uttarakhand (pop. ~12 million) and provides connectivity to neighboring states; has long-range bus services. Issues with the service, depot, as well as infrastructure update is regularly covered in news due to impact - search for "पिथौरागढ़ डिपो" to get coverage for notability and verifiability concerns. I've also cleaned up the article in the meantime to address concerns with un-encylopedic nature of it. WeWake (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to consider sources/cleanup that were introduced/occurred later in the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Because it was requested that the new sources be considered, these are from the article:

Source assessment table prepared by User:Bobby Cohn

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"पिथौरागढ़ से दिल्ली के लिए रवाना हुई दो नई बसें". Vol. Live Hindustan. Hindustan. लाइव हिन्दुस्तान. 28 May 2024. Retrieved 13 June 2025.		I'll note the inclusion of .html?utm_source=chatgpt.com in the url.	Routine coverage of the purchase of buses, no examination of the topic of the depot at all.	✘ No
"Kumaon to receive 107 new buses to boost mountain transport". Times Group. The Times of India. 24 November 2024. Retrieved 13 June 2025.		WP:TIMESOFINDIA	More routine coverage of the bus purchase, the depot is mentioned only to analyze it's current bus allocation.	✘ No
"Official website of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation". Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (UTC). Government of Uttarakhand. Retrieved 12 June 2025.	Organization homepage.		No coverage.	✘ No
"Routes". uttarakhand transport corporation.	Organization page.		Strictly informational from the organization entity	✘ No
"Pithoragarh New Bus Station". Dainik Jagran. 23 Jan 2024.			News coverage about the funding of the bus depot and the (at the time) present infrastructure of for bussing in the region. I doubt there's enough here to demonstrate SIGCOV of the depot as the subject itself, however.	? Unknown
"12 करोड़ रुपये की लागत से बनेगी वर्कशॉप". Amar Ujala Publications Ltd. Amar Ujala. 2025-01-22. Retrieved 2025-06-12.	Some consideration of CHURNALISM, some quotes from parties related to the depot itself.		I would argue this source is even more ROUTINE coverage than the last and has less focus on the subject and more on the funding.	? Unknown
"About UTC – Modes of Service". Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. Government of Uttarakhand. Retrieved 19 June 2025.	Organization website.		Strictly informational from the organization entity	✘ No
"UTC Timetable". Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. Government of Uttarakhand. Retrieved 19 June 2025.	Organization website.		Strictly informational from the organization entity	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Because it was also suggested that users here google using the keyterms, I'll do my best to find WP:THREE, though simply being told to look something up doesn't aid in the finding of sources:

Source assessment table prepared by User:Bobby Cohn

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.amarujala.com/uttarakhand/pithoragarh/roadways-bus-reached-two-kilometer-workshop-after-three-days-pithoragarh-news-c-230-1-shld1024-129595-2025-06-28			No coverage of the subject, coverage of a bus breakdown. Some discussion about the state of affairs for bussing in the region but nothing discussing or analyzing the depot.	✘ No
https://www.livehindustan.com/uttarakhand/nainital/story-bus-breakdown-causes-traffic-jam-on-haldwani-pithoragarh-highway-201738414313637.html			Discussion of bus breakdown event in the region, no discussion of the depot.	✘ No
https://www.livehindustan.com/uttarakhand/pithoragarh/story-bjp-member-demands-new-buses-for-pithoragarh-depot-from-roadways-management-201725967883440.html			News coverage of funding dispute, no coverage of the depot.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Yeah, I'm still not seeing anything here for notability. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J.S.S. Academy of Technical Education, Noida (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)

Cannot be salvaged with a merge. Lacks any coverage by third party outlets. Heavily relies on primary sources. Huge chunks are so simply copy pasted Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 6 June 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 23:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allblessed (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep would appear as if there is a single source independent of the subject, and with the more abundant primary, I think the article could be kept. Work needs to be done on it though. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Iced Tea (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)

Lack of sourcing to demonstrate notability as a product. Fails WP:MILL Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into the Monster Beverage article, Monster is a very much a notable company, being part of the Coca-Cola umbrella. Since this is a Coke product, it is notable, but not notable enough for it's own page. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's still a current Monster brand, then I'd be happy with that. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still is, in fact, it's already arrived onto those Freestyle Coca-Cola machines, if you've seen those before. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

V (programming language) (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 significant coverage in a reliable source about the subject. Betseg (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Betseg (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I see coverage of the language. Granted, not all cited sources can be used for notability, but I see articles and books about the language. I see a short discussion of the sources here, but nothing after some were provided. @Betseg can you elaborate on what is wrong with the sources in the article? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TurboSuperA+, around the same time you posted your opinion on this AfD, the user @Wukuendo left a somewhat inflammatory message on my talk page. Do you know each other by any chance? Betseg (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is the first time I hear of that user's existence. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Betseg, TurboSuperA+ and I are not the same person, as it looks to be going in that direction. In addition (AFAIK), our Wikipedia histories show we have never edited pages of the same programming language or OS nor hang out in the same circles. Wukuendo (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you two were the same people. A friend of mine notified me that my deletion nomination was posted on the Vlang Discord server, so I thought, with the two messages being so close together, you both might be in that Discord server and might've coordinated your messages. Betseg (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You now have pulled this into casting aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS), are engaging editors with rumors (from your unidentified friends on unidentified platforms), taking this outside the context of Wikipedia (discord servers), and give the appearance of being involved in WP:DOX (personal profiles on external sites). Who is/are the "friend or friends" of yours, that are involved in this, based on your statements?

For the public record, I have never been on the Vlang Discord server. That I even have to make such a statement in defense, is incredible. I have no idea who TurboSuperA+ is in real life. You were also told by both TurboSuperA+ and I, that we didn't know about each other. Yet afterwards, you have persisted in presenting unfounded allegations.

Wikipedia is also not a personal club, and is open to and for the general public, thus you can not control who, what, and where discussions referring to it can take place. Wukuendo (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not on the Vlang discord server, this is the first time I hear of it. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in my nomination, there is no coverage about the language in any reliable source that I could find. Feel free to link to any articles from reliable sources or books from reliable authors or publishers. Betseg (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The impression is made, of this being very goal orientated towards pushing article removal, while: (1) Bypassing "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD". (2) Ignoring that the article went through Wikipedia's AfC process for notability (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation) and was accepted by the reviewer Sohom Datta (top of article's talk page). For those who don't know, many programming articles didn't go through that process. (3) Ignoring the article's content assessment rating of C-class (above the usual Start-class). (4) Ignoring the relevance and long debates, involving experienced editors, on the article's talk page over sources (many removals and adds). (5) Apparently dismissing the TurboSuperA+ response (above).

I'm left to also wonder, how or why the V article, is the focus and top of one's personal list. For instance, when looking up programming language articles, have randomly come across Nial, Snowball, Toi... V doesn't stand out as the one to start with or focus on. Wukuendo (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This and this are both sources in the article that establish notability. Neither article is particularly long, but the entirety of both articles is dedicated to the programming language and both authors appear to have engineering backgrounds, making them reliable sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote is not an endorsement of Wukuendo's Talk page message or the rant above about this article being specifically targeted. This is only a source quality evaluation. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My usual approach for articles that use non-RS is to remove those sources and see what remains. I find it helpful to have less to wade through, and those sources should be removed in any case. However, the lengthy discussions at Talk:V_(programming_language) indicate that any edits to the article likely will a) be reverted and b) result in a strong reaction. Others have tried to bring this article in line with WP policy and it has eaten up a lot of time and even some administrator minutes. My concern is that since AfD is not cleanup, we have a kind of "my way or the highway" situation, which is a shame. (p.s. 4th AFD!) I'll circle around to see if any progress is made on this proposal that would give me more confidence. Lamona (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not the 4th AfD. The 1st AfD, in 2008, is for a completely different language. The V programming language we are discussing, came out in 2019. I remember requesting this to be fixed, but that didn't happen and a new request for correction has to be filed. Wukuendo (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So it's the third AfD. It was deleted twice in 2020. Presumably today there would be further sources. Many of the listed sources are not WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. This makes it difficult to know how much of the article would remain if those were removed and the unsourced material deleted (as is required by policy). Examples of unacceptable sources are: github, youtube (both of those can be listed in External links, but they can't be used in support of the article), self-published sources (Lyons and the Japanese book), personal blogs or sites (with some exceptions), unpublished slide decks. I would need to check each reference to see if the source could be considered reliable. It's common to ask an editor to point out 2-3 really solid references to save us time at AfD, and it would be great if you could do that. Lamona (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of sources used are mainstream, including linked to notable articles on Wikipedia. Packt Publishing, Nova Science Publisher, Linux Format, TIOBE, MakeUseOf (MUO), Analytics India Magazine (AIM), etc... are solid. Being used in hundreds of Wikipedia articles: MUO [12], AIM [13], Hackaday [14], Linux Format [15], Packt Publishing [16]... Even more, TIOBE index is the most famous and industry recognized program language rankings in the world, and has V in their top 50. Other sources, can have specific or are for typical use reasons, with more elaboration given below. In addition to have been looked over by senior Wikipedia editors, references are doubled and tripled to confirm statements. At a rate much higher than typical.

If a person is not too familiar with programming languages, the typical programming language article on Wikipedia, or take care in the reading of the article's talk history then its easy to take things out of context. It might be good to check other examples: Zig, Gleam, Crystal, Gosu... There is also a general split on language origins, which might also cause confusion. Where you have corporate developed (with large budgets and media campaigns), languages out of academia, and then more individual and grassroots up.

In the case of GitHub, its usage was done under, "primary source may be used only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person". Relating to WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:Primary, and discussions under reliable sources noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_352#Github. In those cases, GitHub was used to:

(1) Link to the profile of the creator of V (Alexander Medvednikov) and this is typical of programming language articles created about individuals (not corporations).

(2) The origin of V's mascot and verification of its license. This was requested by senior editor Caleb Stanford, and to resolve those chain of issues.

(3) "V is released and developed through", for the location of the original and present software releases. This is typical of programming language articles.

(4) Additionally there is a 3rd party link on statistical information gathered from GitHub and about V, showing the notability of the repo and who the contributing developers are, but is not GitHub.

In the case of the YouTube link (WP:RSE); "may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher." The video is a presentation given on behalf of SYNCS 2023 (Sydney Computing Society) for the University of Sydney to confirm "language was created as a result of frustration with existing languages being used for personal projects". There was no previous objection made, likely because of its connection to SYNCS 2023, however moving to external links is not an issue.

In the case of Independent Laboratory, that is a Japanese company, with numerous programming and technical books published under them. It can also be argued under subject-matter expert. Wukuendo (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An external link to https://github.com/vlang/v/releases would always lead the reader to the latest release because that info is fungible. Also, I note that the link to the developer is to his github page - a better source is needed. The Simon Knott is a person blog post - not a RS. I perused the Independent Laboratory but am still concerned that it looks pretty informal - however, I do not read Japanese so I might have gotten the wrong idea. (That document has no identifier - ISBN, DOI, etc., which usually means informal.) The youtube is a person giving a talk, not, for example, a video created by an organization under "a reliable publisher." It can be placed in External links, but it essentially has all of the authority of a personal blog post. So, not a RS. I cannot find the Nova Trek book - I don't find it on Amazon, Worldcat, nor Google books. There may be errors in the citation, but I tried ISBN, author and title and got zero.

I realize I'm doing cleanup and need to stop. I'll focus on the sources to see if it meets GNG. However, I do think that statements cited to non-RS need to be removed. Lamona (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that others, along with myself, have no problem with constructive or agreed upon policy based changes. People will generally try to find compromises and help build. On stable and rated articles, personal lists of preferences or desired changes, are usually done on the article's talk page (as was previously done with senior editors) and where other editors also get their chance to give opinions. It is not done as demands from one editor that must be executed by another editor, as if they're subordinate. If a person's expertise is not in computer science or the programming field, that's fine, but there should be awareness on possible misinterpretations or missing particulars. This can be exacerbated, if one ignores an article's talk page or doesn't review the history, while trying to quickly implement personal preferences without consensus or compromise. When debates are on the article's talk page, it's easier to see the history and reference statements.

Simon Knott, for example, arguably falls under the category of subject-matter expert [17], a well known Microsoft developer and software engineer, and this becomes more clear by looking at his portfolio [18]. Thus deserves debate. This is why the senior Wikipedia editors (one of them being an active professor in computer science) who had reviewed it, left that alone.

The Nova Trek book is easily found on Amazon by using the obvious "V programming language" (at least 3 related books come up). Though it should be mentioned, that strangely and just when this situation started, the previously displayed ASIN links for the English language books were stripped off. Until then, it was easy to link to from the article. I put in a bug report about the ASIN link stripping situation. The ASIN is B0DRJMP1HM and the Amazon link is [19].

While it may not be a problem to use a link other than GitHub or reference for V's creator, this is not what is done on several similar articles of non-corporate created programming languages or non-affiliated creators, and it appears it can have a privacy component. A public GitHub profile (that verifies a creator's name), where hundreds of developers are contributing under, does not create that kind of situation. That's at least worthy of discussion. Wukuendo (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you assume that I am not "senior" nor familiar with programming. It would be best to stick to the content of the article. The Trek book appears to be self-published, at least based on Amazon's entry: "Publisher ‏ : ‎ Independently published". Lamona (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't type about you being a senior or not. In fact, my assumption was that you were a senior editor, before checking. If you are a programmer, then that's great. The Trek book itself says published by Wang Press, and so do a number of their other programming books. They also sell programming books in various other locations. Wukuendo (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep based on Rao (book), and the Hackaday article. The Analytics India article indicated by User:HyperAccelerated has a note that it is based on the V documentation, and it doesn't seem to introduce anything independent. The Packt source is good but is from 2019 and presumably the language has changed considerably. A number of sources turn out to be self-published or not reliable (e.g. conference presentations). While these might provide good information for the article, they don't serve the definition of notability, which is what we address here. Lamona (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

V's documentation [20] is very extensive (over a hundred pages if printed out) and way beyond what could fit in a normal article. It would be natural for a tech writer to use it as a reference (or to draw insights from). Then to summarize, give a perspective, and do a good faith introduction to their readers. They would also likely be under various space and time constraints by the magazine.

Per previous conversation on a different video and mention of the conference presentation, "a video created by an organization", there is a video of the presentation on V (An introduction to V) [21] created by the Debian Conference (DebConf Videos) and is on their channel [22]. It could be introduced as a reference (within specific context). Wukuendo (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• p.s. I did an almost complete source analysis which I could write up if anyone cares to see. Lamona (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Topic is the main subject of several independent, published books; as well as specific references and rationale noted per above. WeWake (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately the Lyons and Trex books are both self-published. I don't have enough information on the Independent Laboratory one - it isn't listed in any lists of publishers in Japan, there is no ISBN, and I can't find a web site. Having that info would be very helpful if anyone has it. Lamona (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the other books found and from Independent Laboratory [23] [24]. The Rao and Chakraborty books are not self-published. Also, "self-published doesn't mean bad" (WP:USINGSPS, [25]). Wukuendo (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that there is a difference between the sources that can support the facts of an article, and the sources needed for notability. For notability we must have a reliable source. In this case I cannot even confirm who Independent Laboratory or Nova Trex/Wang are - no web presence, not found in publisher lists, do not have an ISBN range, etc. Recent books by Trex have this statement: This book has been authored with the help of LLM tools ...; "help" could be doing heavy lifting there. My take is that they do not meet the WP definition of "reliable." And as for not "bad", please read the criteria list there for reliable sources. These sources do not meet these criteria: 1) "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" 2) "some form of review process, such as editing or peer review". If it can be shown that these sources do meet the requirements for reliable sources, then we can reconsider whether they support notability. I spent considerable time trying to even confirm the identities of these authors and publishers and could not do that. The fact that the books exist is not sufficient. Lamona (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the Trex book, was introduced as a source by a different editor. On LLM tools, various modern authors and publishers increasingly use such new technology to help them create content, however, it's often impossible (at this time) to make entire books (of hundreds of pages) that are intelligible without human editing.

The other sources can support notability or statements in the article, and contested or debatable sources (as has been done) can be removed (as in the article history) or moved (i.e. further reading only) per suggestion or discussion. As can or has been done on various other programming language articles, during the normal editing process. For wanting to do what's appropriate, we are together. Wukuendo (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Various sources provided establish notability (as during its AfC process) and are demonstrably reliable sources (also used in hundreds of other articles on Wikipedia). Such as: [26], [27], [28], [29] , [30]... Wukuendo (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhimanyu Shammi Thilakan (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:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No significant coverage and most sources are non-bylined churnalism, mentions, or otherwise unreliable. Previously deleted A7 and G11 under Abhimanyu S Thilakan. CNMall41 (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Marco (2024 film): Appears to fail GNG. Also WP:TOOSOON for NACTOR. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

,*Keep Pass WP:GNG.Sync! (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC) Sock now blocked. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On which sources do you base that assessment?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A case of TOOSOON. Sources are not enough to establish notability and the career is unable to pass Wp:NACTOR as well. Redirect to Marco (2024 film) is also a good idea. Zuck28 (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:Per nom. Only known for acting in one film. TOOSOON.Thilsebatti (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Murnik (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 cannot find evidence that this person meets our notability criteria, whether that's WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR through roles in Rowing Through, Granite Flats, Justified (TV series) and Vanishing Point (1997 film) and/or because of his prolific career as character actor. The guideline indicates: "Such a person may be considered notable if:The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.")--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're discounting the words "may be considered notable" (my emphasis). Unless my searching is completely off-base, I can find no reliable sources that I would think meet the criteria set at GNG.
  • Setting that fundamental problem aside, nearly all of Murnik's roles have been of the minor variety; Granite Flats is the exception. For example, I was surprised to see Vanishing Point in that list. His role was evidently so minor that he isn't named a single time in the (lengthy) Wikipedia plot summary, nor is he one of the six characters called out in Variety's review (the prose, not the cast list). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if your assessment was correct, that would leave us with 3 significant (not minor) roles, at least, which, despite your nomination statement, would be enough for WP:NACTOR#1, and prolific contributions, which corresponds to WP:NACTOR#2. As for GNG vs NACTOR, your own rationale indicates whether that's WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, so that it seems you consider (and rightly so) it is enough for a subject to meet the requirements of one of the guidelines, not both. I am off the grid and therefore away from Wikipedia, so please do not consider my subsequent lack of response to potential replies has any other meaning whatsoever. Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • My point was that unlike many of the other sections in NBIO, NACTOR uses the word "may". So we can disagree over NACTOR and your definition of a "significant role", but they still have to meet GNG. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Note for the closer: the above user has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He is a working actor, but I don't find any reasonable sources (lots of show fan sites and movie mags, but in which he is essentially name-checked). (This still needs to satisfy BLP.) Although he has had many roles they are mostly had minor roles ("patrolman"), or roles in one or two episodes of a TV series. He had ongoing roles in Granite Flats and Justified. However, it's hard to see these as "significant" as he was no where near starring, he does not seem to have anything significant published about him, has not won or been nominated for awards (compare him to Walton Goggins on Justified, who was nominated for supporting actor), and he hasn't made "innovative contributions... " He's just a working actor, and nothing wrong with that. Lamona (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Room for Abuse 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't seem to have received significant coverage, should be deleted or merged into Room for Abuse. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Spunge: Changed to redirect from merge. See below reasoning. Nixleovel (He/They) (Talk • Contribs) 13:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Spunge: No SIGCOV in RS. Not certified gold, awards, charting or any other notability. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Spunge per others on lacking of SIGCOV and inadequate for a merge. A redirect will suffice here. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desecration of Akbar's tomb (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 first source is from 1925, and provides around 2 paragraphs of coverage and it also doubts the veracity of desecration of Akbar's body[31]. The second source is from Indian news website and authored by a non historian who is merely rehashing the same myth same issue with the third source, Ahmad, Aziz (1964) only mentions this incident in passing[32]. Dwivedi, Girish Chandra (1989) provides a page worth of coverage (See [33]). John F Richards(2001) also provides a few lines of coverage and doubts the veracity of this incident. [34] This topic is therefore not notable and its historicity is also doubtful. Rzvas (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have changed my vote to delete on the basis of information brought up by User:TheSlumPanda Nixleovel (He/They) (Talk • Contribs) 13:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:MUSTBESOURCES is an invalid argument. Koshuri ^(グ) 16:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The description for this incident in scholarly sources is almost nil. It is mostly covered by the pro-Jat sources aiming to engage in caste glorification. Agletarang (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable event. Multiple reliable sources present but need to be written in encyclopaediac toneTheSlumPanda (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC) [reply]

• You must cite those sources here. Make sure they are relevant when it comes to WP:GNG. Koshuri ^(グ) 18:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am changing my vote to delete. On examining the editing history of the page, it was created by a blocked user. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but needs rewrite. Notaoffensivename (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The event itself is of questionable notability and pretty much all the sources failed WP:RS.Ixudi (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Historically dubious event that finds no significant coverage in sources. Koshuri ^(グ) 03:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Cannot find any WP:HISTRSs to verify the notability of the subject. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 04:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While being created by a blocked user alone does not mean an article needs to be deleted, though there is WP:DENY, the real issue here is the total lack of scholarly sources for the subject. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Till, der Junge von nebenan (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)

Only IMDb ref on the page, nothing much on the page to suggest notability. Our colleagues at de.wiki do not offer anything else although their page is longer. Maybe there are offline sources which someone could use to write a properly sourced page but as it stands this seems unlikely to meet our notability standards for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Germany. JMWt (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Show Me the Money (British game show) (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)

Most of the refs on the page are broken, I'm not seeing a way to WP:V the claims with acceptable reliable sources, never mind meet the inclusion criteria. JMWt (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any reliable sources for the claims in this article Nixleovel (He/They) (Talk • Contribs) 13:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Peretti, Jacques (1999-09-14). "Football? It's for wimps. Baddiel and Skinner are old hat. Channel 4's new stockmarket fantasy programme, Show Me The Money, is where entertainment is at these days. And it heralds a whole new concept in 'extreme leisure'". The Guardian. ProQuest 245419851. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review notes: "Show Me The Money falls into a different category: modernised leisure, which like modernised labour/modernised Britain, is about junking the embarrassing past for an even more embarrassing future. In afternoon TV terms, its about nouveau hobbies ... But Show Me The Money wasnt very interested in erasing the city whiz kid stereotype. Instead we get a very unmodern 80s (Mark I) throwback: three twat brothers, whom the producers forced to wear Reservoir Dogs suits and shades, in order to strut self-consciously towards the camera, snarling: Were the brothers, before jumping into a BMW convertible. ... In this respect, Show Me The Money is on the side of the crusties, not the brokers jeering pond life from the 58th floor. The futures trader is as likely to be a smelly man in camo trousers as a pin- striped jerk on 12 mobile phones. Channel 4 know this, even if the jerk doesn't."

  2. "'Show Me The Money' sells shares". The Irish Times. 1999-09-17. p. 55. ProQuest 310449319.

     The article notes: "Show Me The Money has become something of a cult show and not just among telly-addicts. Such has been the impact on share prices that many in the investment industry now tune in to the lunchtime slot with the intention of making a killing. The day Minmet's Mr Metcalfe appeared, his company's shares shot up 20 per cent and within a couple of days had nearly doubled."

  3. Bhoyrul, Anil; Hipwell, James (1999-10-01). "City Slickers: Boardroom Tales - Show Me The Money". Daily Mirror. p. 52. ProQuest 338227252.

     The article notes: " CHANNEL 4 and its new Show Me The Money programme, which goes out daily at 1pm, continues to intrigue.After it was revealed by us that City professionals were making a fast buck by buying the shares of companies whose executives were just about to appear on the show, Channel 4 bosses said they would not reveal which ones were going to appear."

  4. Lewis, Leo (2000-09-17). "Analysis: Take two! Action! Now I'm a market guru Leo Lewis put his share-tipping skills to the test on Channel 4 and instantly became the Sage of Shepherd's Bush". The Independent. p. 5. ProQuest 311720339.

     The article notes: "The trouble is, the spike was alarmingly predictable. Last season, Show Me The Money was notorious for affecting the shares of featured companies. Brokers in smaller houses found they could no longer leave for lunch because they would miss a slew of retail orders from inspired viewers buying immediately after the show. The programme eventually sailed close to a legal wind as some City traders attempted to find out what would be tipped before the show, knowing they could get in and out before Joe Public."

  5. Hume, Neil (2000-09-14). "Bogus caller demands: Show Me The Money". The Guardian. p. 1.26. ProQuest 245561270.

     The article notes: " A group of internet bulletin board tipsters are believed to be at the centre of a stock exchange investigation after boasting online that they knew which stock would be recommended by Channel 4's Show Me The Money the next day."

  6. Sanghera, Sathnam (1999-09-17). "Investment team share golden touch". Financial Times. p. 5. ProQuest 248873054.

     The article notes: "Show Me The Money, Channel 4's fantasy stock market game show, regularly featured leading stock market tippers from news-papers, specialist magazines and the internet. But Nicholas Gay, the 28-year-old hotel manager from Bath whose Good Sports team won this series' contest, says he would never make an investment decision on the advice of such self-proclaimed experts."

  7. Newman, Cathy (1999-09-17). "Share club TV show lifts prices". Financial Times. p. 8. ProQuest 248825296.

     The article notse: "Company bosses have stumbled on a short cut to raising share prices - by braving television cameras. Appearances by chief executives on Show me the Money, a Channel 4 investment programme, have provided a dramatic lift for Aston Villa, VirtualInternet, IFTE and Imagination Technologies. An executive makes a 60-second pitch to a share club in an effort to persuade them to part with £20,000 of imaginary savings. ... But viewers' enthusiasm has raised concerns for private investors. Sebastian Scott, co-founder of Princess Productions, the independent maker of Show me the Money, recognised that "unscrupulous investors" could be buying shares before a company chief executive appears in the hope of "selling them at top dollar" to small investors after the programme."

  8. "Market forces: It's Reflec with a 'c'". The Guardian. 2000-09-05. p. 1.26. ProQuest 245577627.

     The article notes: "Retail investors love it, City market-makers hate it: Show Me the Money, the Channel 4 gameshow in which five teams of investors are given a virtual pounds 100,000 to play with, returns for a second series next Monday. On its last run, the programme drove up the share prices of numerous companies and is already having an impact on trading in smaller company shares, according to market gossips."

  9. Stuart, Paul (1999-09-13). "Business Broadcast". The Herald. p. 19. ProQuest 332602602.

     The article notes: "Show Me the Money: Channel 4 1pm. This daily weekday programme aims to demystify the world of shares with five teams of private investors trying to make as much money as they can on the Stock Exchange. The highlight so far has been the appearances by company chief executives making a 60-second sales pitch for their own companies. Will today's team, with their strategy of thorough research and careful forecasting, manage to beat the random portfolio chosen by a team of toddlers? "

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Show Me the Money to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jorden Feliciano (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 was PROD'd. Changing to AfD for greater input. The prod reasoning was "Doesn't pass GNG, assistant coaches usually dont get page without GNG. refs are all just casual mentions" RedPatch (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 09:16, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Portugal, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I basically wrote this article, but I concede the argument that it's of limited notability. (Sorry, I guess I got a bit too completionist.)

HumblePieEater (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and GNG. Must be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:ROTM company. Sources are routine business announcements and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. ShawMindMiner (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. ShawMindMiner (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: See wp:BEFORE. Zuck28 (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you be able to elaborate on that please Zuck28? Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sources appear to be passing in some cases or routine coverage, but enough and in depth sufficient for the article to be kept. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSV International Inc. (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)

Sources are passing mentions[35], primary sources[36] or sources where they aren't mentioned at all[37]

The "notable projects" for the Worldbank seem to be (but correct me if I'm wrong) local projects where they made a bid for the project but it was awarded to another company???[38][39]

All in all, I couldn't find reliable sources about the company itself, only passing mentions in the context of road projects in India. Fram (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, India, United States of America, and Washington. Fram (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only mentions, and self-published sources were found. No significant independent coverage demonstrating notability. Yolandagonzales (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: While projects they have worked on may be notable, notability is not inheritable. Refs fails WP:SIRS. Topic fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The given information about the is as per the guidelines the content is minimum and informative, References are reliable the company has worked in Indian government projects. Bolemanoj (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read WP:SIRS - reliable is only one leg of three required. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I found few references which can be useful to satisfy the notability standards of Wikipedia. [40], [41], [42], [43]. Sooterout (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaneo Johnson (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 coverage beyond his fundraising; not notable. - The9Man ^Talk 09:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 09:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per nomination. Fails Wp:GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:SERIESA. I don't see what he's done, other than raise money. It's far too soon to know whether this young person will succeed or not. It's also not our mission to help raise money for for-profit companies. We are still trying to avoid the loss of our charitable status due to the machinations of the rich and powerful, and we need to be above reproach like Caesar's wife. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I had this watched for a while now, but haven't been able to find any BASIC coverage. Agree it appears to be TOOSOON. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with the possibility of merging content into Series should reliable, secondary, independent sources exist on the topic. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotional with not much coverage to meet WP:NBLP. - The9Man ^Talk 08:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 08:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep despite the fact that the page needs some serious work, removal of advertising content and minor editing, the person himself is quite significant as a player in the luxury jewelry industry in the MENA region. In particular, Ashish Vijay is a major player in the world's largest precious stone auctions.--Gavek check (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Arab Emirates and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Ashish Vijay has been a UAE resident and has been recognized by Entrepreneur Middle East, Arabian Business, Forbes as one of the Indian Icons shaping the retail sector of the United Arab Emirates. The page does need more serious work however he does play an important role in the precious stone industry across India, UAE and globally. Trusted Sun (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you by any chance related to Ashish Vijay? How do you know all this? What’s your source for this information?Zuck28 (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No secondary reliable sources are available. All the sources are either paid articles or press releases without any byline and WP:SIGCOV. Clearly a puff piece. Zuck28 (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is a high possibility of UPE and COI. Given the votes and previous AFDs, I recommend salting as well to further prevent recreation. Zuck28 (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: My source analysis from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish Vijay still stands. Almost all of the sources are either written by staff or sponsored. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:GNG Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 08:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Promotional article with suspected involment of UPE. No indication of notability. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

France national football team results (1920–1959) (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)

Unlikely search term, no idea why we need to inform people that these years are split over two articles. We can then also create disambigs for 1904-1959, or 1920-1999, or any other possible such combination from Category:France national football team results. As far as I can tell, it's not as if this existed but has been split, unlike France national football team results (1921–1959) which has some history. Fram (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Football, Lists, and France. Fram (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note from page creator: I have no objection to moving the content of France national football team results (1920–1959) to France national football team results (1921–1959), followed by deletion of the 1920-1959 page. As Fram said, it has some history: a split. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Never mind, I have copied the content over myself and converted the redirect into a disambig page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with Fram, unneeded disambiguation page. Govvy (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per above. The content has already been properly organized. Svartner (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - totally unneccessary disambig. GiantSnowman 08:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM aided design (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)

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. If this is notable, it needs WP:TNT because it cannot be divorced from its creation by AI. Wholly inappropriately sourced with unreliable sources, fails WP:V, which is a key tenet of Wikipedia. Previoulsy sent to draft with the rationale While not conclusively AI-generated, the writing style, structure, and tone are consistent with LLM-assisted authorship. It likely had human curation or editing layered on top of content produced or scaffolded by a large language model. Further, the references are almost all deprecated sources. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent author @Manvi jha13 came onto IRC Live Chat asking for assistance with this. They've repeated the article was not created with AI: they state they are pursuing a PHD in this topic so wrote the draft as an academic essay instead of an Wikipedia article. Have given guidance, and assuming good faith. qcne (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QcneThank you so much for your message.

@Timtrent, thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft and for providing your feedback — I sincerely appreciate your efforts.

It is rather intriguing to see the draft being marked as AI-generated again. I have stated in my talk page for the article and would like the opportunity to clarify again that no content of the given page has been generated by AI. The AI tools have been used for vocabulary suggestion, but in no case for text generation. I believe that given the academic use and exploration of the topic, along with the fact that I am a PhD student mostly engaged in academic writing, gives the article a similar tone, which I have tried to improve since your suggestions. Please do let me know if there are any additional areas/sections/perspectives you would suggest for me to improve on.

Additionally, I have noticied that you have reservations regarding the citations? I believe all the citations are academic publications. Please let me know if and how I can improve them.

Thank you,

Manvi Manvi jha13 (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, in reference to your claim on Talk:LLM aided design that "The use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement", could you please disclose in full detail the extent to which you used an LLM to generate the article, including the content, section headings, references, and formatting? Additionally, could you please disclose the name and versions of the AI tool(s) that you have been using to edit Wikipedia, as well as whether you are using those tools to author your comments in discussions like this one? — Newslinger talk 20:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Newslinger

When I state that "the use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement," I am referring specifically to minor assistance such as suggesting synonyms or checking for spelling and grammatical errors (ChatGPT-4o). Importantly, no AI tools were used to draft or generate any content or contextual material.

Additionally, I want to clarify that AI was never used in drafting or contributing to any discussions or comments. I reaffirm that at no point was AI employed to generate new text or ideas, thereby eliminating any concern regarding hallucinations or the reliability of the content. Manvi jha13 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, you made the edit Special:Diff/1296403283 to the article within the last hour. How did you generate the references and the citation code that you added into the article? — Newslinger talk 20:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean generate references? They are the papers I have read, most of them are initailly made available on Arxiv and later published via conferences or journals. Why would it be difficult to find them?

As for citiation code, it is a rather starightforward format one can write it themselves, in any case to simplyfy my work, I wrote a small python script that takes bibtex format citaion and converts to wikipedia style. This helps reduce manual effort, and ensures consistency. I’ve made sure all included sources are verifiable and meet the reliability standards expected here. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger, My apologies, I missed to ping you in my response, please refer to my reply above. Thank you in advance. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the citation code were generated with a Python script, it's not clear why the code would use plaintext instead of normalized citation templates such as {{Cite journal}}, or why it would mix wikitext formatting with Markdown formatting (which is not used by Wikipedia).

This article exhibits too many characteristics of LLM-generated content to remain in article space. I am unconvinced that "The use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement" when the the very first revision (Special:Permalink/1294545580) already shows heavy signs of being LLM-generated, including the excessive use of lists and the idiosyncratic use of title case that are associated with AI chatbots. Draftify, and the draft should not be moved back into article space without going through the Articles for creation (AfC) process. — Newslinger talk 21:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your feedback. I don't understand why a python script would be limited to citation template, it would be able to take input and produce results based on how I program it. So I respectfully but completely disagree with this claim of yours.

Additionally, as I already stated, the use of ChatGPT was restricted to the use for checking grammar and spelling errors. To highlight the procedure goes like- I write a draft -> I pass it to ChatGPT with a prompt asking to fix any spelling or grammatical errors in the given text and just use that. This procedure in no way known to me generates new text. Additionally, in order to clarify again, this is the topic I am working on for PhD, the academic tone and style (including the usage of lists and detailed descriptions) is thus a result of the same Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the version of your draft before you processed it with ChatGPT?​ — Newslinger talk 21:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your question.

I would not have the article as a whole but yes I can get all the paragraphs I processed through the ChatGPT history. Would you like samples or screenshots (or other methods you deem satisfactory for proving, since that is what we are doing here)?

Honestly it is a bit intriguing to see how intolerant the Wikipedia community is of the academic community and their writing style. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide the pre-ChatGPT content in text form on the article talk page, Talk:LLM aided design, that would help establish that the article is not LLM-generated and also help editors improve the article by having your original writing available to reference.

The Wikipedia community appreciates the academic community in general, but many Wikipedians have a negative view of LLM-generated content. On Wikipedia, articles are expected to conform to the Manual of Style, and LLM-generated articles almost always deviate from the style guidelines in much more distinct ways than the average new editor would.

To clarify my previous comment, I did not say that a Python script would be limited to generating citation templates, although I do find it unusual that your script converts citations to "wikipedia style" by partially outputting Markdown instead of using a normalized citation template format. — Newslinger talk 22:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your feedback.

Sure I can add pre-ChatGPT text for reference, just to clarify, do you expect the entire article or a few paragraphs would be enough?

Additionally for the python script, I do not use any libraries, my script simply takes the BibTex(easier to extract from), extracts details like paper name, author name etc.. and simply arranged them in a template I give. The template is the one I found to be the best fit for my scenario, it can be heavily varying from the general trend but I don't think that should be an issue? Manvi jha13 (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are able to post the entire pre-ChatGPT article, that would be preferred as it would be most helpful to all interested editors. For your citation script, I highly recommend revising your script template to use Wikipedia's Citation Style 1 templates to ensure that it consistently meets Wikipedia's citation style guidelines.​ — Newslinger talk 22:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Newslinger

I have added a sample in the talk section of the article. Please refer to it for context. I decided not to include the entire article, as I did not want to create a lengthy and potentially cluttered post there. However, if you still have any reservations about the use of AI in the article based on the example provided, please let me know.

Additionally, I found the article WP:CHATGPT, which clearly states that using AI to refine text is acceptable, as long as the content does not involve hallucinations, inaccuracies, or unverifiable claims. Given that the text in this article has been thoroughly reviewed and all sources are properly cited, I would like to ask if you have identified any instances where this might have been an issue? Manvi jha13 (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, don't worry about your disclosures resulting in a "lengthy and potentially cluttered post", as the content you post on Talk:LLM aided design will certainly be within Wikipedia's page size limit. You can organize your content by wrapping any section(s) of it between the {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} templates to prevent any clutter. It shouldn't take long to post the entire pre-ChatGPT article, as you have already indicated that you have access to your ChatGPT logs. I'm requesting the disclosure of the entire pre-ChatGPT article because the information provided so far, frankly, does not convince me that the article is not LLM-generated. There are multiple paragraphs within the article body that lack inline citations, which is a serious concern with respect to WP:CHATGPT § Risks and relevant policies. — Newslinger talk 21:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment Thank you Qcne. I think that must be interpreted as Manvi jha13's opinion that it should be kept. This does not address the lack of WP:V in the nomination. I will accept their assurance about AI generation in good faith and strike that part of the nomination. It has now been drafified twice, which is one more time than DRAFTOBJECT allows. I do not feel it may be returned to draft space without a full consensus under these circumstaces, crcumstances whcih we would not be in without unilateral moves to mainspace (allowed, but unwise in this case). It may, however, be spared that via WP:HEY. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As nominator I have no objection to consensus based draftification, though I would prefer an assurance that, if sent back to draft, the creating editor will submit for review and work with the outcome of that review and any further iteration. That might be a closure condition, in an ideal world. [[If WP:HEY has happened pre closure then it shoul dbe retained. If I am notified I will consider withdrawal. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Engineering, and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Timtrent

  Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback and suggestions. I have revised the article accordingly. The updated version no longer includes arXiv or other non–peer-reviewed sources. I hope these changes help improve the article's quality and bring it closer to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and reliability. Manvi jha13 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft: is the best option. Unfortunately, it's nearly entirely sourced to arXiv articles, which are not reliable sources. Pre-prints, meaning they've not been peer-reviewed yet. Once they get published, they would have to then show reliable sourcing. This article is also perhaps a bit too technical for a general audience. Needs a rewrite and better sourcing at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  or let it incubate offline and submit it for the AfC review. This wouldn't pass as is anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Article should be improved, then in the longer term merged with AI-driven design automation. This is another new page, with a more general overview (not all AIs are LLMs). Both pages have issues, but the topic is surely worth keeping. LouScheffer (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @LouScheffer,

  Thank you so much for your valuable review. I would greatly appreciate your guidance or suggestions on how the article could be improved.

  While AI-driven design automation does involve hardware design, it is fundamentally different from LLM-aided design. AI-driven automation typically refers to techniques like MLIR or the use of Bayesian optimization and supervised/unsupervised/reinforcement learning to improve stages of the design process. However, its scope is generally limited to optimization rather than generation.

  In contrast, LLM-aided design focuses on the ability to generate descriptions, code, and even complete designs from natural language input; something beyond the capabilities of traditional AI-driven automation. This distinction, I believe, is key to understanding the scope and novelty of LLM-aided approaches. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• TNT Are sure this entire article is not LLM generated? It has a weird, unencyclopedic promotional tone. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (with no shade intended to User:Manvi jha13): I am interested in the assertion, "The AI tools have been used for vocabulary suggestion, but in no case for text generation." Vocabulary is part of text, and suggesting it entails generation, does it not? I am interested because part of my day job is to teach writing courses, and I often hear from students things like, "I didn't use AI. I only used <LLM-based app> to <do writing-related thing>." Again, with no shade to Manvi jha13, it seems to me that the definitions of terms such as AI, LLM, and generate are currently unsettled. This is something that might eventually be mentioned in this or a similar article (though, of course, only after it has been discussed in reliable secondary sources). Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Cnilep

  Thank you so much for your feedback and interest in the topic. I'd like to offer some insights based on my understanding and research into LLMs so far.

  To the best of my understanding, it would be considered "text generation" in the context of Wikipedia if the entire article or part of it were artificially created, which could potentially lead to false information or hallucinations (a known risk even with the latest LLMs). However, when the use of an LLM is solely for refinement purposes- such as improving grammar, suggesting synonyms, or rephrasing sentences- it's comparable to using a thesaurus tool or the inbuilt features in MS Word/Grammarly that flag grammatical issues and suggest more suitable word choices. In my view, this does not lead to the generation of entirely new or potentially inaccurate information.

  Many people are opting for AI tools over MS Word or Grammarly because they can save a lot of time in the writing process. However, after reflecting on the depth of the discussion on this page, I'm starting to wonder if that time saved is worth it! Manvi jha13 (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd stick to the old-fashioned stuff, Manvi jha13. It doesn't take a lot more time and using it develops writing and vocabulary skills. Old-fashioned tools like thesauruses, Grammarly and your brain are much more reliable.

  Wikipedia editors are becoming increasingly wary of any LLM material being used on Wikipedia since it's still unreliable. Of particular concern for us, LLMs tasked with generating an article will produce an impeccably formatted list of footnoted references which turn out to be either inapplicable or just plain made up; that's the kiss of death for Wikipedia's reliability. So if someone senses you're using LLMs, it develops trust issues. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I checked all the article's references and verified that almost all existed (one or two links didn't work for me). All were at least somewhat relevant (I am not an AI expert so "somewhat" was as close as I could figure). All but the several non-peer reviewed refs already discussed above came from very reputable sources such as the IEEE and the ACM. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comments above. I'm no AI expert so I can't say for sure but I suspect we've got a really good article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify or delete. The article requires major revision, bordering on a total rewrite, to be an encyclopedia article. There are footnotes, yes, but as far as I can tell they are serving in lieu, or redundantly in addition to wikilinks (MOS:INTERNAL). Every single footnote I've been able to review is in the form of <thing>[ref to paper that introduced the thing]. This would be easily corrected by replacing them with wikilinks, but it means that the article does not have any references as we use them on Wikipedia, as a foundation on which the article is Wikipedia:Based upon. The fact that the papers cited are the original papers that introduced the things referred to means that they are for the most part going to be WP:PRIMARY literature, and non-independent. All of the analytic or evaluative content of the article are original research, or at least as they would be as far as we would be able to tell (if there are sources they are based from, the author has not cited many of them). This should not be resubmitted without the issues identified being addressed. Alternatively, this can be submitted to a different project that does accept original theories and conclusions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Based on discussion and review of the references, WP:V is not delete-level concern – yes, I agree more sources should be added. LLM-aided design is also a notable topic has has relevance to many fields, including biology where I have some experience. Kashyp et al (2025), Peng et al (2024). The editor is quite open to feedback and specific feedback can be given for further improvement if necessary. Overall, it's an useful contribution for an encyclopedia. WeWake (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Shah (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)

Unable to find any independent coverage, as almost all of the sources are either interviews or passing mentions in unreliable or unbylined sources. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep. Interview sources are more than fine. There are plenty of them: e.g. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, it's completely absurd to think this person might not be notable. They founded the most successful chess journalism / media company ever, and are one of the most well-known media figures in chess. The nominator lacks the WP:COMPETENCE to be familiar with the subject and did not put adequate effort to look for sources. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from chessbase.in are WP:SPS, and thesportzplanet.com, perlenvombodensee.de, and fountainink.in are more like blogs with little or no editorial oversight. To clarify, ChessBase has existed since 1986 and the Indian version was only co-founded by him. Claiming that “they founded the most successful chess journalism/media company ever, and are one of the most well-known media figures in chess” reflects your bias and is not policy based. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Complete nonsense. Media-wise, the Indian version of ChessBase is way more important than the German version. How do you not know that? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, Perlen vom Bodensee is not just a blog, [56], it is a very reliable source, also trusted by de-wp, for what it's worth. - Squasher (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please double check? Because from what I see, the only author who consistently writes on Perlen vom Bodensee is Conrad Schormann, who is also the founder. Six articles were written by Stefan Löffler and a few by Roland Neumeier. The translated DE wiki article states that "The site's editor is Conrad Schormann, who is supported by a team of 18 authors.", which I believe is misleading based on what I’ve seen so far and the fact that the article has very few edits also doesn’t help its reliability. In any case, having a page on DE wiki doesn’t automatically make the source reliable, especially since the standards on EN wiki are significantly higher, which I believe you already know. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to add or to check. I saw the article this afternoon by chance and also the the AfD, with a comment I did not completely agree and just wanted to leave a note that might help. The source is viewed as reliable in de-wp by the chess portal, if you do not agree, that is fine for me. Sagar Shah is at least in my eyes a relevant topic for someone like me, who follows chess purely from an interested viewer point of view. He is very well known in the chess eco system, in de-wp he is notable already just by having reached the IM title. If he doesn't meet the criteria here, because no sources can be found, that are seen as sufficient, so be it. - Squasher (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No snow in the forecast here. Any further input on the sourcing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ChessBase India is not an WP:SPS. He is not the one writing the articles that are about him. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that ChessBase India is probably the most reliable WP:RS among chess publications. If you don't want to count it for the subject of this article because he's the one who created it, there's some lacking WP:COMMONSENSE going on here. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, the nominator does not understand what ChessBase or ChessBase India are. These sites exist to sell chess products (e.g. software, under the name ChessBase), hence why they have similar names. They also both have a media/journalism component, but the two media/journalism components are completely separate from each other. ChessBase's media/journalism component is not considered particularly important or successful, while ChessBase India's media/journalism component has been so successful that a lot of people believe the media/journalism component has overtaken the chess products component in terms of the company's image. I can provide sources to back this up, but this is just common knowledge if you are familiar with chess. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Although you are correct that Chessbase India is not a WP:SPS, as he is its founder, I don't see how it can be considered independent of the subject. Also the interview with him is primary - see WP:IV. Interviews are not fine - they are primary sources. But despite that, the Perlom vom Bodensee article looks good - SIGCOV in an independent reliable and secondary source. We need multiple, of course. There are mentions in a few other places, but I haven't yet found more. All the same, I think based on coverage that does not rise to significance or where independence is questionable, I still think we could support a presumption that more exists. That being said, there is a caution: the text of the Perlom vom Bodensee article has Werbung (advertising) just before the body text. If the whole article is paid advertising, then it is not independent. In that case I would say this is a clear case for deletion. Only if we can verify the independence of that article would I say it's enough to support a weak keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:IV says some kinds of interviews are fine. I agree with you that the video interviews are primary, but the written interviews vary. This one and this one are both definitely acceptable in that regard. For Perlom vom Bodensee, it's not a paid article, if that's what you mean. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If ChessBase India's media/journalism work is successful, then it deserves its own standalone article. By WP:SPS, what I was trying to point out is that he owns the Indian site, so anything it publishes about him can effectively be considered as self-published, even if it carries an author byline. I realize now that I phrased that poorly before but my main point is that these sources are not independent.

  Likewise, the Chess.com Creator of the Month feature would be considered routine coverage if it were about any other YouTuber/streamer. From what I understand of the standards here, the bar for notability among YouTubers and content creators is quite high and a single interview or profile like this wouldn’t be enough to establish it.

  Perlom vom Bodensee cannot be verified to have any kind of editorial oversight, as it is the founder publishing the majority of the articles and this is once again an interview. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For most of the Creator of the Month articles, the issue would be it's not independent, as almost all of the featured creators are affiliated with Chess.com. But that's not the case with the subject of this article. He is one of the only creators featured who isn't affiliated with them. So it's not WP:ROUTINE. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Likewise, it's ridiculous to frame the subject as just a content creator when he is primarily known for creating an entire media platform. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean keep - Haven't investigated in depth but I've certainly heard the name before, he's a strong player (just below GM level) and I'm familiar with his writing on chessbase. The combination of strong player and established chess journalist should be enough to get him over the line. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please make your rationale P&G based. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. Back off a little. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe. WP:IKNOWIT arguments don’t really help much either I guess. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuquanying (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 intersection. In attempting to source this article, I was unable to find any valid sources about this particular intersection, much less anything that would contribute to notability. Garsh (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems odd to me that the article is focused on an intersection. Isn't Yuquanying a major road, not just an intersection? (There seem to be many articles about the road and building complexes on the road via Google News.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of notability and I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no indication of notability. Jeepday (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Yuquanying Subdistrict. The Chinese name here is 玉泉营, which seems to refer to a variety of topics in that area, but I think all can be covered at the main subdistrict article. That article could be expanded with this source, which covers the history of the area in depth, though its reliability could be debated [57]. Toadspike [Talk] 11:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Sources have been added, focus has been expanded to mention Yuquanying's 800 years of history as one of the 18 floricultural villages of the Fengtai district of Beijing before becoming the site of a major highway intersection and overpass. (OK I'm still in the process of untangling how best to cite and/or edit that section, which could still take several days as I try to work on other things.) Sincerely appreciate the pointer to the administrative subdistrict page provided by Toadspike (not to mention their spirit of investigation which is what makes these geography AfD puzzles interesting), but the modern administrative subdistrict article can remain separate from the Yuquanying article about the history of the village since the Jin dynasty. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have mixed feelings about this – I considered expanding this article, but decided that Yuquanying Subdistrict, an article about a populated place, is more suitable for this information. I don't mean to be rude, but you have effectively hijacked this article and changed its topic to one that we already cover elsewhere. Toadspike [Talk] 09:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The 800-year history of the village of Yuquanying, where there is now also a highway overpass, is not covered at all in the current article about Yuquanying Subdistrict, which focuses on an administrative region established in 2021. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we can only have one topic claiming notablity per GEOLAND on this, and here it should be the legally-recognized subdistrict. Of the three sources you link, the first is about the subdistrict, the second lists Yuquanying among other subdistricts like Majiapu Subdistrict and some places that don't seem to have legal recognition, and the third is a mathematical analysis of traffic at the intersection that doesn't actually tell us anything about the intersection. I am not convinced this shows the need for a split from the main subdistrict article. Toadspike [Talk] 10:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, we can still keep looking for more sources; those were just indicative and as I said, it's still a work in progress. The first source actually leads with the modern Yuquanying subdistrict but the third paragraph is about the historical village of Yuquanying and its 800-year history as a flower town. The second source is interesting because it references the historical (centuries-old) concept of the 18 villages of Fengtai district, which is discussed elsewhere in books and suggests a fruitful line of research, and also provides more context about the floricultural history of the region. (Actually not sure what to do with "Beijing Yuquanying highway" in the third source; not even sure if it's actually about the actual intersection or overpass. Is it? Very unclear from looking at the article.) Anyway Wikipedia is full of multiple articles about the same geographic location. We could easily keep splitting this article into sub-topics and at minimum, Yuquanying would have to be retained as a disambiguation page. (And yes, you are correct: it is more polite to assume good faith per WP:AGF.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: per Toadspike, I don't see a convincing argument for keeping both Yuquanying Subdistrict and Yuquanying, the history part of this article, which I guess was added post-nom, can be put in the subdistrict article and this can redirect there. Moritoriko (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not even clear that the administrative region is geographically in the same place as the old village! In fact, it subsumes several old neighbouring villages, possibly. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Chinese geography and naming is a bit outside my wheelhouse, but would you say it is likely that the name of the subdistrict was chosen because of the old village? Doing further research on the "18 villages of Fengtai" is not showing me much of anything either, perhaps that information should be put in that article instead. Moritoriko (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is exactly the kind of assumption that leads to misinformation on Wikipedia, particularly with regard to geographical history. Every claim made on Wikipedia should be verifiable per WP:V. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is why I am asking you if this is true, and doing it in the AfD instead of putting it in the article. I'm not going to put unverified information out there >( Moritoriko (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. At minimum, this discussion could be closed as no consensus and if other editors seriously want to pursue a merge discussion, they can start one, though I remain unconvinced from the arguments made above that the now significantly expanded and referenced Yuquanying (covering the 800-year history of Yuquanying village and the surrounding area through the early 21st century) should be merged into the Yuquanying Subdistrict, an article focused on the governance and boundaries of a modern administrative region that was created in 2021. Also, WP:HEY. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Going through the sources added since my last comment here:

  • [58] mentions Yuquanying market once, among a list of others. Not SIGCOV.
  • [59] mentions that a segment of the Beijing–Kaifeng highway starts at the Yuquanying interchange. Not sigcov.
  • [60] is about the local government of Yuquanying Subdistrict, which already has its own article.
  • [61] Two photos of Yuquanying, with captions that tell us nothing about the place. Not sigcov.
  • [62] mentions Yuquanying Flower Market among a list of others, alongside its opening hours. This is not sigcov; often such coverage promoting businesses/events is also not considered independent.
  • [63] is a passing mention, not sigcov, though it does provide the interesting factoid that the Yuquanying Flower Market was "[Beijing's] largest potted flower wholesale market" at the time (in 2003).
  • [64] is a government report on a fire at a business (玉泉营环岛家具城, 'Yuquanying Roundabout Furniture City'), not really about the town.

  The article Yuquanying Subdistrict doesn't have to meet the GNG because it meets NPLACE, but we can't make the same carveout twice for the same place. I remain unconvinced that we need two separate articles and strongly stand by my original position that these articles should be merged. Toadspike [Talk] 14:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The claim that "We can't make the same carveout twice for the same place" is not policy – it actually demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the broader landscape of Geography and History articles across Wikipedia. Wikipedia is vast though, and there is no deadline, so I would recommend joining up with more WikiProjects where you might get exposed to a larger volume of articles. (I find my own perspective changes all the time, the more I read and the more I edit and the more I participate across different WikiProjects.) Cielquiparle (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We've only got one editor in favour of keeping the article, but it's been expanded considerably since the delete !votes, so we don't really have consensus for anything else, either. Suonii180, Jeepday, do you care to revise your positions? Anyone else have an opinion on whether this is a suitable merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Yuquanying Subdistrict. The subject passes WP:GEOLAND, but there's no reason to have two articles about the same subdistrict.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How do we know they are the same geographic coordinates? The problem is, we don't. It's the highway in particular, which was the genesis of this article, which I'm uncertain actually is located within, or managed by, the administrative subdistrict itself. The ancient village itself was likely also only a subset of the modern Yuquanying subdistrict, which now subsumes many neighbouring villages as well. Anyway, I think it's pretty clear this discussion is essentially ending up as no consensus and that the merge discussion should continue separately if needed outside of AfD, with proper evidence rather than casual AfD !voting. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man's armor (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was created as a split from Iron Man's armor in other media that was later merged back to Iron Man's armor following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Man's armor in other media. There's no reason for the Marvel Cinematic Universe to be separated from Iron Man's armor anymore. Both articles are short enough that after merge they'd be within WP:PROSESIZE, and the Iron Man's armor contained a lot of unreferenced plotcruft that I recently removed (effectively the 'in other media' stuff). While there are sources that talk about how Iron Man looked in various movies, there's no reason to split this - it's also doing a disservice to the readers, most of whom will end up at the main IMA article and not see the good content in the article here; the Iron Man's armor article now has a tiny, one sentence section on IMA in other media, stating that "Iron Man's armors feature prominently in several films set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe." It should be replaced with the content of this article. I fail to see how the movie-universe armor has separate stand-alone notability versus its basic concept, and why it couldn't be merged. There was a discussion of this previously at Talk:Iron_Man's_armor#Merge_from_Iron_Man's_armor_(Marvel_Cinematic_Universe), but most comments were pretty much "just votes" with no meaningful rationale, IMHO. Anyway, as far reasons for deletions, I want to reiterate that this article is a bad WP:CFORK of dubious stand-alone WP:GNG that failed both in the past and now the logic of WP:SIZESPLIT. The fate of Iron Man's armor in other media was decided at AFD, the fate of the article that was split out of it should follow suit, given the failure of merge discussion to produce meaningful rationales (WP:NOVOTE). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Merge as per nomination in toto. This doesn't seem to be well served by a bifurcated page. Iron Man's armor is Iron Man's armor whether it's in the MCU or on Mr. Rodger's Neighborhood. A single page increases the likelihood that a user will find what they are looking for. That being said, I am not entirely convinced that the wardrobe of any character justifies it's own Encyclopedia entry, but that's another discussion for another page for another day. Foxtrot620 (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: There was just a months-long discussion opposing a merge, and any proposed deletion would result in content from this article being merged into the comics article. The MCU version of the Iron Man armors have enough significant discussion about how they were made for the films that are distinct from the comics article. If this article were to be merged anywhere, I would suggest Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) as a more appropriate avenue, but AfD is NOT the place to try and force a merger just because it was recently rejected with consensus against a merge. I'm sure this article can be expanded to include commentary about the armor designs from the films, if that is a concern. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is as legitimate as any other "(Marvel Cinematic Universe)" topic because the expansive world of MCU films and television series (and even tie-in comic books) presents a distinct vision from the original comic book material, and has its own distinct coverage. With respect to Iron Man's armor in the films, for example, there are details about both the practical costuming and the CGI rendering that are irrelevant to purely comic book versions. BD2412 T 01:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I will ping participants of the discussions merged here: @RemoveRedSky, InfiniteNexus, Maxwell Smart123321, Trailblazer101, The Squirrel Conspiracy, Andrew Davidson, Hako9, Johnpacklambert, Favre1fan93, Dream Focus, Darkknight2149, TTN, BOZ, and Rorshacma:. I was going to do it from the nomb but got distracted. Sorry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no memory of any previous discussions I've been involved in regarding this subject, but if I had to guess, I found some version of the article via a bot-maintained list of articles by highest count of non-free files, and tried to get that number down. I did a lot of that with superhero articles. In terms of the article as it stands now, even from a quick glance it's in remarkably good shape compared to a lot of articles I've seen in the area. Should that have any bearing on this discussion? Probably not. Just pointing out that I've seen my fair share of impenetrable lore dumps and this article has such things as formatting and citations, which those were thin on. @Piotrus: I'm not upset at all that you pinged me, but feel free to skip doing so in future DRs. It's been many years since I was involved in writing Wikipedia articles and I doubt I'll have much to offer in DRs going forward. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Squirrel Conspiracy You were the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Man's armor in other media :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. This is largely plot summary and nothing more, and I'm not seeing any SIGCOV, either from the keep votes or in the article, regarding this subject. I see no reason for a separation here, and the notability of the armor in the MCU is Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED from the notability of the armor elsewhere. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Trailblazer. The film version is independently notable because of all the real-world production information available (design, practical suits, VFX, etc.) and cramming all of this into the bottom of the comics article would be silly. If the comics article is barely holding itself together then why not merge it to Iron Man? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as best summarised by Trailblazer and adamstom97. Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 13:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge as content fork. There is already an article for Iron Man's armor, let alone Iron Man (comic book) and Iron Man and Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe). This covers much of the same content with minimal unique coverage added. I appreciate the keep !votes who are open to finding an appropriate target, per WP:ATD and WP:CONSENSUS. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nomination. This is a content fork that does not demonstrate adequate sources to justify having a separate article. The concerns about the article size is easily solved by only merging the notable, well sourced examples and not the copious amounts of non-notable examples and trivia. While either the nominator's proposed Iron Man's armor or the subsequently suggested Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) would be appropriate merge targets, I personally feel that the latter would be the better choice. Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer to see it expanded to other powered armor concepts rather than merged to a single character. BD2412 T 00:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @BD2412 We have Exoskeleton_(human)#Fictional_depictions and a rather not impressive List of films featuring powered exoskeletons... We probably need Exoskeleton (human) in fiction. Right, @TompaDompa. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This would appear to be more-or-less the same topic as what The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction calls "Powered Armour", right? I also found a brief chapter—"Exoskeleton"—in Robert W. Bly's The Science in Science Fiction: 83 SF Predictions That Became Scientific Reality (2005), so the topic at least meets notability requirements. TompaDompa (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Without nerding out about it too much, I think there is very likely to be sufficient content for an article specific to powered armor in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, particularly including Stark designed armor, whether used by Stark or by other characters, such as the various War Machine suits, the Iron Spider suit, and upgrades to technology used by Steve Rogers, Clint Barton, and others. There is also the unrelated Black Panther vibranium suit, and more recently the Stark-inspired Ironheart armor. Generally speaking, all of this is more fiction than science. BD2412 T 19:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Trail and Adam. This is a legitimate split of content that was adding undue weight to the comics' armor page when it was created, and by far has it's own notability to justify its existence. And as per Trail, additional work can be done to add more information about the real world creations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But after cleaning unreferenced plot fancruft from the comic's armor page, it has plenty of room for that. And it's hardly undue there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This was a legitimate split and even the OP admits that there are sources backing up the topic. To be quite honest, this nomination reads almost like it's fishing. I'm getting flashbacks to the slew of low-effort comic book-related AfDs that plagued the early-2020s where a few people would nominate whatever and use WP:IDONTKNOWIT and the current quality state of the articles as a rationale (this was at a time when almost everything deletion-related at WP:ANI was getting deadlocked due to tribalism and eventually sent to Arbcom, so the people doing it were untouchable and a lot of GNG-passing content went into the meat grinder). As far as this one goes, I have no strong objection to it getting merged with another article, but there's not enough here to justify a deletion. Darkknight2149 22:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait, where is your keep rationale here, outside WP:IDONTLIKEIT? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Iron Man's armor per WP:OVERLAP. This is comic book fandom run amok really, the armor is not that important to require 2 separate articles from the character himself, who is largely known for the armor anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotional article about a person with one source that reports on the WP:SINGLEEVENT. The rest is unsourced puffery. No longstanding WP:SIGCOV. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Travel and tourism, Cycling, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per nom. A long article based on a single source seems problematic. Svartner (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

  People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

  Sources

  1. Spragg, Iain (2014). "Manser's African Odyssey". Cycling's Strangest Tales: Extraordinary But True Stories. London: Portico. pp. 110–111. ISBN 978-1-909396-49-4. Retrieved 2025-06-21 – via Internet Archive.

     The book notes: "That's a hell of a lot of pedalling if you were to undertake the epic journey on a humble bicycle, but such trifling obstacles did not deter South African adventurer Riaan Manser when he decided to accept exactly that daunting challenge, an ambitious expedition which very nearly killed him. Manser set off on his trusty mountain bike from Cape Town in September 2003. He averaged an impressive 88.5km (55 miles) per day and after two years, two months and 15 days in the saddle, travelling through 34 different countries, he had become the first person to circumnavigate Africa on two wheels. ... Manser's feat was recognised when he was named 'Adventurer of the Year' by Out There magazine in 2006 and granted an audience with Nelson Mandela. He politely declined an offer to work for the Liberian Tourist Board."

  2. Razzetti, Steve (2010). Great Cycle Journeys of the World. London: New Holland Publishers. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-84773-463-1. Retrieved 2025-06-21 – via Internet Archive.

     The book notes: "Riaan Manser from Cape Town went one better. In September 2003 he set out on his mountain bike to ride the whole way around the continent. Two years, two months and two days later he was back, having pedalled an incredible 36,500 km (22,680 miles) through 34 counties, lost 14 kg (31 lbs) in weight, learned French, Portuguese and Arabic, eaten monkeys, rats and bats and been kidnapped by child-soldiers in Liberia. The journeys described in the pages that follow may not be quite as epic, but they will certainly open your eyes to the wonders of this most wonderful of continents."

  3. Simontacchi, Andrew V. (2014-06-18). "World renowned adventurer Riaan Manser makes stop in Great Kills Marina after 5-month row across Atlantic (with photos)". Staten Island Advance. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

     The article notes: "That's been the reality for Riaan Manser, a renowned world traveler and self-proclaimed professional adventurer whose five-month, 5,000-mile rowboat trek from Morocco to New York City included a stop at the Atlantis Marina in Great Kills on Wednesday. ... The long-haired, long-bearded Manser, 40, was hanging out with Ms. Geldenguys in their home one day when they decided they would venture to New York City in an incredible way -- via rowboat. Without a support staff, the couple set off in December, with a portioned supply of food and water donated from a South African grocer. ... Manser is a traveling author and public speaker outside of his professional adventuring"

  4. "SA adventurer Riaan Manser and his wife Vasti were stuck on a small boat together for 173 days – What they learnt could help you through lockdown". News24. 2020-04-13. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

     The article notes: "In 2009 Riaan Manser set on a world first when he became the first person to circumnavigate Madagascar by kayak. The expedition lasted 11 months, a feat he achieved alone and unaided. The incredible 5000km journey, 5000 km, was demanding, both physically and mentally. Not only did Riaan have to overcome severe loneliness, but natural disasters, extreme weather conditions, and ten hours in saltwater wreaked havoc on his body. ... Four years after his solo trip, Riaan and his wife Vasti took on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean. They endured a 173-day expedition from Agadir, Morocco to New York City, USA. ... In 2018, Riaan was joined on his 7-metre rowing boat, by rowing rookie and a total stranger Fanafikile Lephakha for a 5500 km expedition from the Canary Islands to Barbados which would last nearly two months."

  5. Kilgannon, Corey (2014-06-21). "Adventurous Couple Arrive in New York From Africa, Merrily, Merrily". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-09. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

     The article notes: "Riaan Manser and Vasti Geldenhuys, a fun-loving couple from Cape Town, have been together for 14 years, so when Ms. Geldenhuys, 36, suggested a vacation, he was agreeable. ... Mr. Manser, 40, is a professional adventurer who, without Ms. Geldenhuys, a lawyer, has traveled the perimeter of Africa on a bicycle and around Madagascar and Iceland by kayak. So he suggested that the two row a boat from Africa to the United States, with no accompanying vessels. They completed that journey around 2 p.m. on Friday, rowing their custom-built, 22-foot, high-tech rowboat into the 79th Street Boat Basin almost six months after leaving Agadir, Morocco, on Dec. 30. After rowing almost 6,700 miles, they claim they are the first pair to row from mainland Africa to mainland North America."

  6. "Riaan Manser – Do something almost impossible". The Newspaper. 2023-06-05. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

     The article notes: "First, it was Riaan Manser, alone and unaided…cycling the entire perimeter of the African continent, then circumnavigating Madagascar in a kayak and similarly around Iceland in a double kayak, adding two more incredible world firsts to his name. He then met his adventure partner for life, Vasti. Together, they broke world records through their adventures; from a world-first ocean row – Africa to North America, and then earning another Guinness World Record during a subsequent ocean crossing – the fastest mid-Pacific row from California to Hawaii."

  7. Monakali, Namhla (2024-10-01). "Renowned adventurer Riaan Manser captivated primary school learners with thrilling tales from his travels". People's Post. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

     The article notse: "Manser, whose children’s book My First African Adventure, was awarded the overall winner of the SA Book Awards 2023, spoke to the Grade 3s to 6s about his remarkable adventures, including a journey cycling around the perimeter of Africa. ... After the talk Manser signed copies of his books, including My First Wild Island Adventure and My First African Adventure, for students and staff alike."

  8. de Lange, Phil (2023-05-16). "Riaan Manser's brush with death". Smile 90.4FM. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

     The article notes: "He’s known as the South African that has conquered the world’s toughest oceans and most hostile environments. But now Riaan Manser is about to take his whole family on an adventure. He told Ryan all about it this morning and also shared a story about one of his scariest adventures. First, it was Riaan Manser, alone and unaided…cycling the entire perimeter of the African continent. Then he circumnavigated Madagascar in a kayak and Iceland in a double kayak which added two more world firsts to his name."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Riaan Manser to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pirated movie release types (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:NLIST, largely original research and what sourced material does exist within the article is sourced to unreliable sources. Previous AfDs were just a WP:VOTE without actual policy debate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Crime, Technology, and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's very informative. 2804:38A:A03C:FC45:340D:BFFF:FE2C:5120 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC) — 2804:38A:A03C:FC45:340D:BFFF:FE2C:5120 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep: 2603:7000:8800:EE11:6D92:F6D9:CF13:FA06 (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC) — 2603:7000:8800:EE11:6D92:F6D9:CF13:FA06 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep: I also agree that it is very informative. This article provides encyclopaedic value by documenting terminology and release patterns that have been widely used and referenced in digital media communities for decades. While improvements in sourcing and structure may be needed, the topic itself is verifiably notable through its sustained use in torrenting platforms, piracy-related discussions, and tech journalism. Deletion appears to be motivated, at least in part, by ideological opposition to the subject matter rather than a neutral assessment of whether this information is citable and informative. Wikipedia’s purpose is to document what exists in the world—not to legitimise or condemn it.— SBWalkerP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

  I am not sure where in the nomination one would find "ideological opposition to the subject matter". If you are implying this is due to edits outside of the discussion, that is a WP:ADHOMINEM personal attack. You have also not provided sources as evidence for your claim it is notable. WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a viable argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s clearly an LLM-written vote ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: We can probably combine all of this into Online piracy. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Online piracy. May be informative but Wikipedia is not a guide. मल्ल (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I'd argue that this does comply with WP:NLIST. Release types are defined standards complied with by major scene groups - this topic is notable enough to have several papers written that discuss release groups and standards. I absolutely agree with you that new sources need to be found and that this article needs to be rewritten, but deletion isn't the way to go and I don't see a merge as able to do it justice. Manwithbigiron (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)— Manwithbigiron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Agreed; keep. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do agree that all of this should be somewhere - my main concern with merging would be that this would put undue weight on film piracy. It's probably one of the most common things people think of when they think of online piracy, but it's not the only version. Plus if someone were to find sourcing for the various other versions of say, online piracy of books, music, video games, and so on, sections of this nature would quickly overwhelm the article. I agree in that it's probably better to keep this stuff on a separate page, to keep the main online piracy page a bit tighter. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This does need more policy-based input focusing on whether reliable sources exist for this content. WP:USEFUL comments are not helpful, and neither are suggestions to merge this already overlong article into another.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Third party sources, article is sourced. Looks decent. as stated above the article provides encyclopaedic value by documenting terminology.BabbaQ (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Blast from the past, but what are the sources which treat these as a group? Just starting with the basics, I did a search for '"cam" "telesync" "screener" "dvdrip"' and found no reliable sources. Yes, each might be verifiable on its own, but we need WP:NLIST. It's challenging in that (a) most of this relates to online piracy culture, and few reliable sources treat that with the nerdy depth this list goes for, (b) this stuff was most popular 20 years ago, so there's a lot of link rot in play. It's certainly possible sources exist, but I'm not seeing them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure this should be an article of its own, but Online piracy is clearly full. Shockingly the page Movie piracy is a redirect so I suggest that an article is expanded at that link and then this is merged into that article. I think this content is worth keeping and Manwithbigiron has found some quality sources that can serve as a base. The current article name and contents need some cleaning up, its not 2007 wikipedia anymore. Moritoriko (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now per Moritoriko. Should meet NList as pirated movies are clearly notable as a whole (with classifications discussed by Manwithbigiron's sources) though I agree that this seems like it'd be better off merged with a future Movie piracy article. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I want to note that keeping in the current state is not what I support. Moritoriko (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My !vote is for merging eventually. I would've made my bolded part "merge" after starting a basic Movie piracy article myself, but there's so little information on Wikipedia anywhere that I don't know where to start. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I myself made an article on video game piracy, I assume an article like that would go along similar lines. However, merging would be untenable due to the unreliability of the information here - it would be equally as unreliable there. You're better off doing research in books and news rather than trying to find things that already exist on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Okay, we have a clear consensus for "this doesn't belong here, but it probably belongs somewhere". Relisting for one more week in the hopes that this helps us figure out where that somewhere might be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Movie piracy is the ideal merge target. As for the start... I guess having the current content of the release types article as a "Types" section in the Movie piracy article could be a start.
Online piracy is balanced enough and moderately long already. I don't think it's good to have 4 screens worth of its content concentrate on movies. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to closing admin I feel that many here are mischaracterizing the information in this article as mergeable in an effort to have the page kept. To be clear, it would require a 99% rewrite from scratch. Almost nothing is mergeable on the page, as it is unreliably sourced or original research, as I said in the deletion nomination. The rationale is not just one of non-notability, but WP:NOT. Furthermore, if pirated movies are overall notable, the place for that is starting a new article at movie piracy with none of the existing info here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If so, I would encourage instead a discussion of comparison listicles with "arbitrary" criteria as a whole, as comparison listicles are dominated by them. They have been voluminous and the status quo for too long to just delete one by one. I tried starting one at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Software comparison table listicles after seeing this nomination bu tit has seen little participation. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I should have looked into the sources already on the page a bit more before my previous comment (note that it was not a !vote) as they are primarily primary sources that I would say have questionable reliability. I think someone that wants to write the article about movie piracy, which definitely is notable on its own might want to save a copy of this to refer to, but all of the interesting information needs a source to be found first before it can be used anyways. Moritoriko (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]