Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 14	May 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Perry Collections

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

Promotional article Is la🏳️‍⚧ 23:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, United States of America, and California. Is la🏳️‍⚧ 23:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is notable enough, but I agree, the promotional content should be removed, and the article should be cleaned up. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The People article is a RS. Billboard does shoe reviews apparently [1], but this is also a solid source [2]. Should be good for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: in terms of WP:NPRODUCT, it seems borderline from what I checked so far. However, the 2019 international coverage of the blackface controversy ([3][4][5][6]) has become something of academic interest beyond the breaking news cycle. See, for example, [7][8]). The products have been reviewed by Billboard [9]. --MarioGom (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure how this this and this were missed in a WP:BEFORE. And yes, the controversy was well-documented, including in textbook cited in the vote above, and this book. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Katy Perry #Other ventures Non notable company owned by notable singer and WP:Cheap. Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement - The article about Katy Perry Collections needs to be improved and I don't have time to improve it. Could either of Mariogom, CMNall, or Oaktreeb please improve on it. -- EclipseExpress (talk) 2:55, May 16, 2025 (UTC)

Keep. I don’t find any of the article to be promotional in nature, and the subject is notable per GNG. ZachH007 (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, either is fine, but agree with the above, don’t delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Myriospora elegans

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

The species was not validly published (confirmed on both Index Fungorum and MycoBank) and should not have been created to begin with; I believe it was made in an attempt by a now-banned editor to bluelink all of the taxon names (valid or not) on the monstrous dab page C._elegans_(disambiguation). It has no literature presence, so doesn't qualify for a notability bypass (search in quotes recommended because "elegans" is a common epithet). Esculenta (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commment MycoBank's record for Myriospora elegans Hepp (1860) says the current name is Biatora elegans Zwackh (1850) but the MycoBank record for B. elegans Zwackh say that name is also invalid, while listing as synonyms some other elegans combinations attributed to "Hepp ex A. Massal. (1860)" including Chiliospora elegans. GBIF's M. elegans Hepp record was "deleted" in 2021, but says it is a synonym of of Biatoridium monasteriense, and the GBIF record for B. monasteriense lists some elegans combinations attributed to A.Massal, including Chiliospora elegans. Index Fungorum has a record for Chiliospora elegans Hepp ex A. Massal. "Hepp ex A. Massal" is effectively no different than "A.Massal". I think the Myriospora elegans article could be deleted, but I'm not sure about deleting the Chiliospora elegans redirect that drove the creation of the M. elegans article. Plantdrew (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This modern source (doi:10.3897/mycokeys.31.23658) corroborates the synonymy of Chiliospora elegans with Biatoridium monasteriense, so I created this page for that redirect to point to. Esculenta (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete following up on my Comment above since this has been relisted. With Chiliospora elegans now having a new target, Myriospora elegans can be deleted per nom. Plantdrew (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sharif Mohamed

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

This article barely meets WP:GNG it only has 1-2 reliable sources, which isn't enough to prove the subject's importance. The topic doesn't seem to have played any major role, and many of the links are dead. Without more reliable, third-party coverage, this article may not belong on Wikipedia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Lists of people, News media, Politics, and Maldives. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NPOL. --hroest 18:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage seems typical of that associated with a media spokesperson and does not establish notability. Mccapra (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hog Farm _Talk 02:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prescott Currier

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

He was a World War II cryptography lieutenant, but I see no substantiation for the unsourced claim that he "played a major role in the Cryptanalysis of the Enigma". There are passing mentions, which fail to satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Maine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (soft) with the hope that eventually, sources might be declassified and show he's notable. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the sources cited in the article, which are not fully utilised, I found more information about him here which provides a list of more sources, and here. If the article is kept I will use these to expand it and add his portrait. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article needs work, references found give evidence of notability: (1) The NSA calls him a "giant" in cryptography; (2) He was one of 4 Americans who went to Bletchley Park to help with decrypting the Enigma. References to both are now in the article. There are likely more. While I may not have time to do the work, @Hawkeye7 has offered to do the work. — ERcheck (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources discussed until now show notability. MarioGom (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs some additional work. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Alton Towers#Main Past Attractions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twirling Toadstool

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

No coverage in RS PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable theme park ride. No coverage i can find Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alton Towers#Main Past Attractions – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirection or Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with @Svartner that this can be redirected to the alton towers page. I will add some info from this article to the table but the ride is not independently notable. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alton Towers: No reason to have an article by it's own. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Telegantic Megavision

AfDs for this article:

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

You can't have it both way if this page goes which at least has a few ref https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Google&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tricky_(TV_series)_(2nd_nomination) then this page along with a few others have to go aswell since it has NO proper REF. Its a shame but double standard cant not be allowed.. --Crazyseiko (talk) 15:55, 1 May 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 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The deletion rationale above is flawed as the question is not whether the article is currently referenced. However, I found no evidence of the subject's notability. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Editors can discuss a possible Merge or Redirect on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Mersey Pirate

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Mersey Pirate

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

You can't have it both way if this page goes which at least has a few ref https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Google&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tricky_(TV_series)_(2nd_nomination) then this page along with a few others have to go aswell since it has NO proper REF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 15:50, 1 May 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 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator, please read WP:BEFORE. Have added three references. If other editors do not agree this article meets WP:GNG then I suggest merge or redirect to List_of_television_programmes_broadcast_by_ITV. Orange sticker (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has reliable third person sources to justify a Wikipedia article. If other editors disagree it should be merged to List_of_television_programmes_broadcast_by_ITV.Dwanyewest (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Ordinarily, I might have closed this as No consensus but I found the Keep arguments to be persuasive and the focused on the sources while most Delete comments relied on their own personal knowledge or that of associates which isn't a factor in an AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elissa_Shevinsky

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability has not been established for this person. Page was previously nominated for deletion Barrettsprivateers (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Computing, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the previous AfD discussion was closed in 2013, so that was a while back. There is news coverage on Shevinsky that post-dates the previous discussion. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Voting for delete due to lack of notability. Research indicates that the subject does not have a reputation amongst her peers— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrettsprivateers (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination is already a vote. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have done a bit of tidying up and removed the poorly-cited, resume-like items to focus on news coverage of Shevinsky. The best three sources (all in the article) are a 2014 New York Times article [10], and 2015 CNN article [11], and her coverage in a 2014 book by Dan Shapiro [12]. In addition, she has been widely quoted in the news talking about sexism in the tech industry (see examples in the article). DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a bit better written after that clean up, but she is still not notable by WP:GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes GNG with WP:SIGCOV in independent WP:RS's mentioned by DaffodilOcean ~~and also phys.org [13]~~. She may also pass WP:AUTHOR #3 for her book Lean Out. Nnev66 (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking phys.org reference as I don't think it counts as a reliable source. However, keeping my !vote the same given three strong sources previously identified and three reviews for Lean Out. Nnev66 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still not notable by WP:GNG RocketDwiki (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hard to analyze a negative. Notability has not been established. Therefore my comment of delete is pretty much all that is required in a vote. RocketDwiki (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Shapiro book section may not be completely independent, author is in the same niche as subject (tech startup CEOs who are frequently quoted about misogyny in the tech space) - guessing that's a pretty small world. See his blog post about their interview and article they were quoted in together. But the NYT piece is clearly sigcov, CNN is decent if a bit less in-depth, and her book has at least 3 reviews in RS. Put altogether subject seems at least weakly notable. Zzz plant (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that the NYT piece, the CNN piece, and the reviews for her book are sufficient to establish notability. Her book and her work are also mentioned in at least half a dozen academic books and journal articles, e.g. [14] [15]. At worst, this should be redirected to Lean Out: The Struggle for Gender Equality in Tech and Start-up Culture as an ATD. MCE89 (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish to be notable under WP:GNG. Have also discussed with cyber experts and she is not known to them.Fordyhall (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talking with outside experts is original research, which is not acceptable at Wikipedia (see WP:OR). I also find it interesting that you found a discussion at Articles for Deletion on your second edit. Have you been editing Wikipedia with another username? DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just noting here that only one of the four nominators has put forward a reason for deletion consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Even the one who said they thought the article didn't meet WP:GNG guidelines didn't address the three sources DaffodilOcean put forward for notability in their Keep !vote above. Zzz plant questions whether the book is independent because the author and subject are in the same smallish field but also !voted Keep. I'll expand here on the three book reviews for Lean Out. Two of them also have coverage of the subject: [16], [17] and the other is a comprehensive review: [18]. With all of these sources taken together this article should clear GNG. I'm willing to accept the subject is not a cybersecurity expert, but this is not relevant for this discussion. Nnev66 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Meek

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. All I could find were passing mentions such as [[19]]. Let'srun (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough RSes to justify inclusion. Let me know if other sources are found. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to AN/MPN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AN/MPN-14K Mobile Ground Approach System

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

The AN/MPN-14K is a modified AN/MPN-14 which is fully described in the article AN/MPN. There is a wikilink to the -14K article within the AN/MPN article which is wholly unnecessary since the -14K article does not meet general notability and the -14K article has no citations at all. I recommend the -14K article be deleted (merge unnecessary). — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 20:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Technology, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: When a merge is "unnecessary", the title gets redirected to the main article. Someone searching the topic with the -14K included will then be brought to that page, instead of being left thinking that Wikipedia does not cover the topic. This discussion did not really need to be brought up; the redirection of the page could simply have been done. I'm just sitting here, watching the wheels go round and round... (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as the subject seems to largely replicate the subject covered by AN/MPN. Not seeing a case for independent notability or any merging. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Andrew Poole

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

Doesn’t seem to meet WP:SIGCOV. One of the sources is a press release, another is some random Flash presentation (which I have no idea if it is reliable or not), another is a 2 sentence mention in an article about a movie, and the HarperCollins profile seems to be a primary source that does not establish notability. (I’m pretty sure every author under that publishing company has a profile on there, and the author gets to write the blurb that goes on it.) Tried looking for other sources but the only other ones I could find were primary. ApexParagon (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He wrote a book about Pacquio the boxer, but I don't see reviews. I don't think we have enough to pass AUTHOR, or notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I almost wanted to without searching for more sources and finally get rid of this article lacking notability since 2010. But I found some sources via "EBSCO Information Services", which seems to be the go-choice for book reviews and writer-related stuff: —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 14:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Gary Andrew Poole. Baker & Taylor Author Biographies. January 2000:1. Accessed May 16, 2025. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lkh&AN=49346127&lang=ru&site=eds-live&scope=site
- Gonzalez III JJ, Merino AMF. “One PacMan, Four Biographies.” Asia-Pacific Social Science Review. 2011;11(2):57-65. Accessed May 16, 2025. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=70967692&lang=ru&site=eds-live&scope=site
- Moores A. The Galloping Ghost: Red Grange, an American Football Legend. Booklist. 2008;105(1):32. Accessed May 16, 2025. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lkh&AN=34225949&lang=ru&site=eds-live&scope=site
- The Galloping Ghost. Kirkus Reviews. 2008;76(15):80. Accessed May 16, 2025. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lkh&AN=34031994&lang=ru&site=eds-live&scope=site
- Cannella S. Remember the Titans. Sports Illustrated. 2008;109(15):18. Accessed May 16, 2025. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=34785461&lang=ru&site=eds-live&scope=site

Keep: Amazing job finding those sources. I added them to the page and removed the GNG tag. He might still need some BLP sources for life facts idk. Moritoriko (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator withdrew their nomination and closed this discussion but that shouldn't have happened as we have an editor making a Deletion argument. This needs to be officially closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koichi Sasada

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

This article about a programmer and academic has been tagged with notability concerns since 2014. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added three external links, but these don't help with notability (two interviews and a blog post with a translation of work by Sasada). I may be missing sources in Japanese, but with what I have found I don't think he meets WP:NACADEMIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Redirect to Heroku is a possibility. Tacyarg (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Technology, Computing, Japan, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NPROF and I dont see enough in-depth coverage to justify notability as a Ruby developer per WP:GNG. --hroest 20:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blanco, Tulare County, California

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

Fails WP:NPLACE, I did a WP:BEFORE search, and did not find significant coverage, or any mentions of a Blanco in Tulare County (except on topos). From above, this area seems to be only be a farm. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Older topos show this was the site of a passing siding on the Santa Fe line. Before the dairy complex was built around 2000, there was just nothing here. Mangoe (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an unincorporated location WP:NPLACE, notability is established through WP:GNG. I can't find any reliable sources giving significant coverage. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sirah of the Prophet

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

I can't find evidence that this is a notable book, sources are blogs, shops, ... Nothing better seems to available through Google Books or News. Fram (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. Fram (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see how this passes WP:NBOOK. Mccapra (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any significant coverage of the book, academic or otherwise. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough, no SIGCOV in RS, no major awards. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Kumar (mountaineer)

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

Fails WP:NBIO, created using WP:LLM with only one source that is PRIMARY (self-published). All others are mostly WP:TIMESOFINDIA that has no url/links. Agent 007 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Bihar. Agent 007 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond the fact that this seems pretty likely AI-written, it is also created by a blocked user, and it is an orphan. Ré union! 18:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable IAS officer, couldn't find anything in my BEFORE to satisfy GNG or ANYBIO. I have similar concerns about the listed sources being AI generated and being mis-represented (which is what lead to the author's ban, more on that) but just want to clarify of the above !vote that the article was not created in violation of a block or ban, and being an orphan can be remedied and not a valid reason for deletion. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, that's true, I forgot to mention that it also pretty obviously fails WP:GNG. Ré union! 15:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dang, reading the other comments further damn this case for deletion. It would fail WP:GNG under normal circumstances but the other circumstances around it further bolster deletion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vwakpor Efuetanu

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

Spammy bio for a non-notable Nigerian businessperson. The sources are promotional fluff (a visionary leader using technology and sustainable energy solutions to uplift underserved African communities... setting a precedent for innovation and progress across the continent is par for the course [20], [21]). Other sources are just WP:PRIMARYSOURCES based on the subject's own words about himself ([22], [23], [24]); regurgiated press releases ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]); straight-up sponsored content ([33]); tabloid coverage ([34]); or his own website ([35]). His supposed "honorary doctorate" is from an institution that does not appear to grant degrees at all and should not be considered a significant award for purposes of WP:ANYBIO#1. All told, I don't see a WP:GNG or WP:NBIO pass here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above

DankPedia (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I understand the concerns raised, there are several points worth clarifying:

1. Notability (WP:GNG/WP:NBIO): Vwakpor Efuetanu has received substantial coverage in numerous independent, reliable sources across Nigeria’s top-tier media. Outlets such as Tribune Online, Leadership, The Nation, The Guardian Nigeria, and Vanguard have all published extended profiles or interviews. These publications are not merely blogs or PR reposts; many are mainstream national outlets with editorial oversight.

2. Depth of Coverage: The articles in Tribune and Leadership go beyond passing mentions. For example, this piece discusses Efuetanu’s partnerships with HP, Beats by Dre, and Nexford University, and his AI empowerment efforts in Edo State. These are not trivial activities, and they have received regional and national recognition.

3. Independence of Sources: While some sources may contain promotional language (as is common in coverage of entrepreneurs), this does not invalidate the independence of coverage. Many pieces were written by journalists, not submitted press releases, and they include third-party analysis of impact and reach.

4. Significance of Achievements: The subject’s work in AI education, youth empowerment (over 30,000 trained individuals), and partnerships with state governments (e.g., Edo State Government) show a demonstrable impact in a sector (AI and renewable energy) that is recognized as both emerging and of global relevance. These accomplishments are covered in national outlets, indicating the individual’s notability under WP:NBIO #2 (significant coverage of professional impact).

5. Honorary Degree – While the awarding institution (CIPRMP Ghana) may not be globally ranked, it is commonly cited in Nigerian media, and such honorary recognitions are frequently mentioned in bios of other notable figures. That alone is not the basis for notability, but it is part of the broader picture of public recognition.

6. Primary Sources / Website: The subject’s website is used only as a supplementary source for factual background and not as evidence of notability. The article itself can and should rely primarily on independent secondary sources, which are available and already cited.

I welcome efforts to further improve the article’s neutrality and tone, and agree that removing any promotional language or overly close paraphrasing is essential. However, deletion is not necessary. The subject clearly passes WP:GNG and likely WP:NBIO based on multiple independent, reliable sources with significant coverage.

Covnantay (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this reply is CLEARLY written with WP:LLM. Ré union! 18:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dclemens1971. Ré union! 18:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly a highly promo page with very dubious claims. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daris Đezić

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Second-tier footballer with only database entries cited. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing better than his name mentioned in lists of players; no in-depth coverage anywhere. — Moriwen (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. — Moriwen (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I looked at German Wikipedia as this footballer was born in Austria, but it's just an unsourced stub. Given that he is yet to make his professional debut, I don't see the article as a potential draft. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Bianchini

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

I cannot find any evidence that this individual passes any of the criteria of WP:NARTIST, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC, or WP:GNG. (If you find anything indicating otherwise, please ping me.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, and France. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above DankPedia (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete. In fact, there is at this point little support for outright deletion, some support for redirecting (which is effectively deleting but also acknowledging that the subject is noteworthy for mention somewhere in the encyclopedia), and a thin majority favoring keeping the article on the basis of sources that are meagre but not impermissible for use. I would suggest that those advocating for keeping the article continue searching for sources. BD2412 T 23:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Neiszner

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

Article about a hockey player, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for hockey players. The leagues he played in, the American Hockey League and the ECHL, are specifically listed in WP:NHOCKEY as conferring notability only if the player "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer, first-team all-star)" -- but there's no claim being made here that he ever achieved any such thing in either league, and he hasn't been shown to pass WP:GNG either as the article is referenced entirely to content self-published by the teams he has played or worked for rather than any evidence of independent coverage in third-party media sources.
The article has, additionally, spent 18 full months with WP:BLP-violating nonsense like "He is currently an ambulance driver in Alberta. He once smiled, but really didn't like it. Chris also had the pleasure of providing the Rebels staff with water in their mouths." in it until I found and poleaxed it just now, which isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself but does speak to how many responsible editors have actually seen the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without much more and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Whenever I see an AfD on a article on an obscure hockey player such as this, I tend to flicker my gaze to the top of the screen to see if Dolovis -- an editor eventually community-banned from new article creation, and responsible for creating thousands of articles on NN subjects, often in direct defiance of notability guidelines -- was the perp. Bingo! In any event, there's never been any iteration of NHOCKEY under which this player, whose career was multiple rungs below top flight, has been considered presumptively notable. Ravenswing 12:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Red Deer Advocate gave extensive SIGCOV of him, e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Versions of the above links that will open through Wikipedia Library: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Also this story from the Las Vegas Review-Journal. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are four significant article about him provided above. 1 4 5 6. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage in the home market of the team he played for isn't sufficient in and of itself to give a minor-league hockey player a GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY. We'd have to see nationalizing coverage, not just the Red Deer Advocate alone. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

coverage isn't sufficient ... [for a] GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY – ?? NHOCKEY is an inclusionary criterion, not an exlusionary one (and a broken one at that -- if you meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG; if you do not meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG). The only thing that matters is whether he meets GNG, and national coverage is not necessary for that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a distinction between "inclusionary" and "exclusionary" SNGs. GNG does not just count up the number of media hits and keep anybody who's surpassed an arbitrary number, without considering the context in which the media hits exist — as I've said more than once, if GNG just concerned itself with the number of sources a person had, and didn't care about whether the context of what the person was getting covered for was actually of any broad or sustained public interest or not, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's former neighbour who once got a blip of media coverage for finding a pig in her front yard. (Hell, if all GNG cared about was the number of media hits that could be found, and didn't measure for whether the context of what those hits existed for passed any notability criteria or not, then I would even be able to claim that I qualified for an article.) So media coverage doesn't just have to hit some arbitrary number of clippings, and also has to verify passage of one or more notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sport-specific sub criteria is just leftover stuff from before WP:NSPORTS2022 that wasn't participation based (all of the participation criteria was removed). None of the individual sport guidelines have been updated with replacement criteria so we're pretty much just left with skeletonized guidelines that offer unhelpful advice like likely to be notable if they've been inducted into the hall of fame. There's isn't even any guidance currently on football, gridiron football, or baseball. In regards to NHOCKEY, the only NHL guidance mentions first-round draft picks, which is obviously too strict given all of the blue links at 2017 NHL entry draft (and there's never been an overabundance of hockey players anyway). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Right now, it looks like Wayne Gretzky fails NHOCKEY. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He does fail NHOCKEY. I suggest an AfD. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV does not exclude local coverage, and makes no mention of national coverage. Flibirigit (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage isn't excluded from usability, and I never said it was. But local coverage is not necessarily enough to hand a person a GNG-based exemption from normal inclusion criteria all by itself — unelected candidates are not exempted from NPOL just because they can show a handful of local campaign coverage in the local media of the area where they were running without any evidence of broader significance, actors who don't otherwise pass NACTOR's achievement-based criteria are not exempted from them just because they can show a handful of "local aspiring actor gets first bit part in movie" coverage in their hometown media without any evidence of broader significance, high school and junior league athletes are not exempted from the inclusion criteria for their sport just because they can show a handful of hometown local coverage without any evidence of broader significance, local bands are not exempted from having to pass WP:NMUSIC just because they got a few hits of "local band plays local pub" in their local newspaper without any evidence of broader significance, and on and so forth.
If a person is properly established as passing an SNG on an actual inclusion criterion, then we genuinely don't care whether their sourcing is "local" or "national" — but if a person's coverage isn't establishing passage of any specific inclusion criteria, and instead you're trying to argue that they get over GNG purely on the number of media hits that exist in and of itself, then a local vs. national coverage test does come into play, because lots of people can show some evidence of local coverage in contexts that don't pass encyclopedic standards of permanent international significance. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON and WP:WALLOFTEXT may apply here. Flibirigit (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the only coverage were a couple of articles from Neiszer's home town of Craik, Saskatchewan stating that he made it to a WHL team, I'd probably agree that he does not meet GNG. But he has much more extensive coverage from Red Deer, Alberta, which is not his home town (or even his home province) plus significant coverage from Las Vegas, Nevada, which is not even his home country. That's not to mention a lot of insignificant coverage in other newspapers in other ciites. So he actually has not only national coverage, but international coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Red Deer Advocate is a perfectly acceptable source for demonstrating significant coverage for notability, which has no "national coverage" requirement, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal provides an additional source of significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment while not really an international outlet, there are at least 6 articles from the Red Deer Advocate here which would count towards notability. However, my problem is that they do not seem to be very in-depth which makes me wonder whether there is enough material to write an interesting article that goes beyond the Hockey stats. --hroest 19:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources seem quite limited and I don't think it passes WP:BASIC. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with multiple sources of SIGCOV listed above. NSPORT doesn't have any reasonable sport-specific guidance on stuff anymore since WP:NSPORTS2022 so this is all we have to go on. Just following the rules. Can't have it both ways. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer This is due for close or relist today, but I don't see any source review. Could we get a relist to do that properly. My first observation is that 6 of the 7 sources come from the same newspaper, and so these would only count as a single source for purposes of GNG. The links have ot been set up through the Wikipedia library so I will need to do a bit of work to review them, but that is at most one source. The other, the Las Vegas Review, is a report on their return, but is primarily an interview, so the biographical information is not independent, and is primary. I think this needs more work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Source review - Thanks for the relist. I have now looked at the six sources above, and here is my assessment (in conjunction with my earlier comment about the Las Vegas Review source).
The following are all from the Red Deer Advocate, a local paper for Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. They are mostly from one staff correspondent. One is from an alternate staff correspondent. The page subject is only associated with the Red Deer Rebels. The Red Deer Advocate is owned by Black Press, but coverage of a player on the local team in a local paper is clearly WP:ROUTINE or of questionable independence. To be notable, the player must surely be noticeable beyond the local paper.

1 (Meacham, 2001) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. ?
2 - Not SIGCOV. N
3 (Meacham, 2005) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. Additionally information appears to be obtained via interview, and aspects of this are primary reporting. ?
4 (Meacham, 2010) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. ?
5 (Rode, 2005) This appears to be a write up of an interview, so the biographical information is not independent. N
6 (Meacham, 2003) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. ?

The six sources count together. While some are excluded, there is SIGCOV here in this local paper about the local team. But can they be used for notability? Certainly not on their own. They provide some useable biographical information, but they do not indicate notability. GNG requires multiple sources in any case. If we had national coverage at this level, we would keep, based on the coverage, but as things stand, if this is all we have, we are not yet at GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in our guidelines suggests that coverage by a "local team in a local newspaper" is of "questionable independence" or necessarily routine. And the Las Vegas article (which is not an interview) is not Red Deer, or even Alberta, or even Canada. So there are multiple sources, and not just national coverage but international coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very much disagree with the source review above. The Review-Journal is an ~800 word story on him that is not solely an interview. Sirfurboy seems to be stating that any story that has any quotes or such is automatically non-independent, but that is clearly incorrect and including quotes from closely related people is a feature of almost all good sports reporting. Review-Journal is SIGCOV source 1. Then we've got an avalanche of coverage from the Advocate. "Questionable independence"? No, the paper is not owned by the team or anything like that. Being local does not mean non-independent! And there is no requirement that a subject receives national coverage. The Review-Journal has SIGCOV and then the Advocate has SIGCOV. That's multiple sources with SIGCOV, and that meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly everything in the Review is indeed from an interview. I missed that 89 words of direct quotation actually come from Glen Gulutzan, his coach, saying:
Early on he's had some offensive success, but what we can count on him for is the same game every night. That's why he's good for our younger guys. His game doesn't fluctuate every day. It's the same every day.
"He kills penalties, plays in front of the net on the power play and on 5-on-5 he's defensively responsible. We know every night we can rely on him in tough situations. He's just a well-rounded player, and that's how he has to be to get to the next level.
Other than that, the only material that is not directly from the subject is that he spent last season in France (signed because of his agent), his offense has improved, he scored 23 points in 26 games, and he is reunited with Justin Taylor. This is primarily an interview with a returning player. Where is he returning to? Las Vegas. And this is the Las Vegas Review. What is not interview is news reporting, city wide but local. Again, if we had any national coverage it would be different, but coverage of who is rejoining a local team is routine, match reporting is primary and interview content is not independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's 260 words of coverage of Neiszner that is not from quotes – that's SIGCOV. There is no requirement that the coverage be non-local. Whether you personally judge it to be "routine" because its of a "returning player" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters, aside from it being reliable and independent (which it is), is whether it is in-depth coverage (SIGCOV), which it is. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we're discounting "local" coverage and entire sources because they have some quote material (which is standard sports journalism), then there are a decent amount of NHL players that wouldn't even pass GNG. Would an article on a Philadelphia Flyers player in The Philadelphia Inquirer not count since it's "local"? Only All-Star caliber players and those who have played for 10+ years will have national SIGCOV. I'm not going to "die on the hill" (for lack of a better phrase) for this minor leaguer but I would for an NHL player. Here is an example of a Q&A type interview that wouldn't count towards notability. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes can be valid coverage, especially if they are not from an interview with the subject. Rlendog (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. - see WP:IV. As we want biographical SIGCOV of the player, the quoted information is primary, and cannot be used for SIGCOV. What we can take into account is the question of why the interview happened. Why did a newspaper believe interviewing this subject was important? Does that indicate notability? But that takes us to the occasioning of the sources, and relevant here is that these are coverage of the local team, and this is run of the mill stuff. Look at the 89 words from the coach above: it's just talking about him as a team member. We need something more here. If the subject is notable, someone other than the local paper will have taken note in something other than simple team news reporting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. – correct, which means that the quotes in the article cannot count as coverage of the subject. However, the ~260 words written by the journalist on Neiszner is coverage that counts as SIGCOV. All good sports journalism includes quotes, so you're suggestions that including quotes automatically makes sources primary and unusable would make basically all sports SIGCOV unusable, which is very obviously in error and a ridiculous assertion that I have never before come across in my five years of participation at hundreds of sports AFDs. Once again, whether you personally think this is "local run of the mill stuff" is entirely irrelevant; all that matters is whether there is SIGCOV in reliable sources, which we have here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I make it 171 words and I already dealt with that above. It tells us that he spent last season in France (signed because of his agent), his offense has improved, he scored 23 points in 26 games, and he is reunited with Justin Taylor. The source is primarily an interview in local press about a returning player. It is routine, and the occasion of the source (that he is a returning player) makes that information primary. Biographical information may be secondary, but there is no independent biographical information to speak of. It is almost entirely not independent. And we routinely treat routine local press more cautiously for notability. You are attempting to make this a black and white, any two sources and it's in. That's not what the policy says. What it actually says is this:
"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.
Under the accompanying note it adds "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." If we had one national source, I'd accept these take us to multiple sources, but they are simply not enough on their own. Thus, at this stage, my !vote is ~~Delete~~. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you get 171, but it is ~260. Per GNG, a topic is notable when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It says nothing of "routine local press" being discounted. And I'll add that the Las Vegas Review-Journal is no small-town paper, but a large one, the largest in the state of Nevada. That the source is about a "returning player" is irrelevant; once again, the only thing that matters is if there's SIGCOV. It is not primary, and that there's some quotes in the article does not make it so, for quotes are a feature of all sports journalism. The suggestion that quotes automatically make a source unusable is ridiculous and would result in the deletion of the vast majority of all sports articles. National coverage is not required... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget that IV is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Rlendog (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But not wrong. The policy it is based on is found in WP:PRIMARY. See note d. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the relevant issue of whether quotes within a secondary source count as primary is not in WP:PRIMARY. Rlendog (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like wikilawyering around the margins. Look, if you are writing a biography, everything the subject of the biography says about themself is a primary source and not independent of the subject, by definition. That is not just Wikipedia saying so. This is true everywhere, and should be self evident. It is also the policy (as I have shown) and the guidance (as I have shown). What you can seek to do with interviews is demonstrate that the fact of the interview makes a case for notability. That is, the occasion of an interview should be considered. It is not a mechanistic thing, but clearly if someone is being interviewed by a variety of different news outlets, there will be a reason why they are being interviewed. I've argued, in the past, that a subject was likely to be notable based on the range and duration of interview material. But that argument is quite apart from the GNG one. For GNG, interviews are neither independent nor secondary. There is no wiggle room there. They are not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: it's not per definition that interview material is primary; see Wikipedia:Interviews#Primary or secondary?. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which says The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. I already quoted it. What an interviewee says about themself is primary. Please note that this is exactly what I said. We are not talking about an interviewee talking about the right way to varnish yachts for our yacht varnishing page. We are talking about interviewees who are talking about themselves, for the question of what to put in their biographical articles, as I made very clear. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made the note as your general advice What you can seek to do with interviews is demonstrate that the fact of the interview makes a case for notability. can be read as the content of an interview is always primary. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of that changes the fact that the article written by an independent journalist who decided to include the quote (or used information from an interview in their article) is secondary. None of what you have "shown" changes that. And the statement that you quoted is solely in the essay WP:IV, not in any of our guidance or policy. Rlendog (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And your claim that "everything the subject of the biography says about themself is a primary source and not independent of the subject, by definition." But some of the quotes you want to exclude from the Las Vegas article are from the subject's coach, not from the subject. But in any case, the journalist who chose to include those quotes in their article is not the subject and not even related to the subject so it should be self-evident that the article is secondary, even if WP:IV was a guideline or policy.Rlendog (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is just repeating what has been discussed above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quotes are always primary, and when they come from someone affiliated with the subject they are not independent either. The only interview content that can contribute to GNG is secondary commentary by the interviewer; neither quotes nor "the fact the newspaper decided to interview them" counts as independent secondary SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As SIGCOV of the subject is provided. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article from the Las Vegas Sun about Neiszner. Not the most enlightening, and it does contain some quotes from the subject, but another independent, reliable source that felt this subject was worthy of an article. Rlendog (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd closed as keep, but have volunteered to relist per User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Neiszner May weigh in more later when I'm back online.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Wranglers page where he is mentioned. Per NOPAGE, we do not have to have an article just because coverage exists, and I think the very local-interest-news, interview-based slant of the current sourcing makes it hard to write a truly encyclopedic article on the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could pretty much make that sort of argument to get rid of any topic I want. "Yeah there's SIGCOV to meet GNG, but I don't like this subject and therefore I declare it to be unencyclopedic and it should be deleted per NOPAGE". There's no requirement that sources be non-local and it isn't "very local-interest-news" either, as e.g. the Review-Journal is the number one paper in Nevada. I don't understand a redirect to the Wranglers either, as they weren't even the top team he played for. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Red Deer Advocate even hyper local? According to Media in Alberta, it's the No. 6 paper in the province. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if the Review-Journal is not the number one paper in Nevada then the Las Vegas Sun is. And both have carried articles about Neiszner. Rlendog (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Six articles in the Red Deer Advocate (circulation 5,579) about a Red Deer Rebels player/coach are surely local-interest news. An interview in the Las Vegas Review-Journal about a Las Vegas Wranglers player is also still local-interest news. There can be significant coverage that is nevertheless not particularly encyclopedic enough for a standalone. This is more in line with PAGs than an editor insisting brief local blurbs are SIGCOV for someone who meets their personal standards for notability but are not SIGCOV for random other subjects (this isn't a reference to you specifically). JoelleJay (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No in 2010, it was circulation 83,987 per the Media in Alberta page linked above. We can't use the current figures. Physical newspapers are pretty much dead. They were already dead by 2010 too. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources provided are mere "brief local blurbs". Some of them are to a degree local, but being local does not prevent them from meeting GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article on his coaching career. Some from the Calgary Herald. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Procedural note that the AfD was closed but reopened for a second time, see User_talk:HilssaMansen19#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Neiszner. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Las_Vegas_Wranglers per JoelleJay. I have struck my delete above in favour of this ATD which makes sense as the subject is mentioned there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment above: I don't understand a redirect to the Wranglers either, as they weren't even the top team he played for. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also baffled at the suggestion to redirec to the Wranglers. Neiszner is mentioned at Red Deer Rebels as an assistant coach, and played for higher level teams than the Wrangers. Flibirigit (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  What redirect would you suggest? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep the biography, and no redirect is needed. My opinion has not changed that he meets GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What higher teams did he play for? The article only mentions the Wranglers professionally. The Red Deer Rebels are a junior and amateur team. The Wranglers is clearly the best redirect, if not deleting the page - especially as he is mentioned there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment genuine question - why are you suggesting this - The Wranglers is clearly the best redirect, if not deleting the page - especially as he is mentioned there.
    
    in a reply to
    
    @Flibirigit mentioning they do not want any redirect or delete. Keep the biography, and no redirect is needed. which itself was a reply to your What redirect would you suggest? comment above. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Wranglers are ECHL (third-tier); he also played for two teams in the AHL (second-tier), mentioned in the infobox. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Which is entirely unsourced. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      See this link in the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Which shows almost his entire professional career was at the Wranglers. Also is it correct? This one does not mention Texas Stars at all [36]. If he had any significant professional career outside of the Wranglers, it seems odd we have found nothing about that in several weeks of discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough coverage exists to satisfy notability standards. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 02:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closer the concurrent discussions at User_talk:HilssaMansen19#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Neiszner and User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Neiszner which you may or may not wish to take into account when closing. Star Mississippi 03:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warren James Jewellers

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

Should be deleted because it lacks independent, reliable sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia guidelines. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing found in support of retaining this article here. Ran a WP:BEFORE but hope of finding WP:SIGCOV effectively truncated by the abysmal search result. Patre23 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

!vote From an initial review, there appears to be a lack of secondary sources. However, the company is - in my view - notable. It is described in 2006 as "the United Kingdom's largest independent jeweller" in a Nominet ruling. It is described as a national jewellery retailer in a more recent 2023 legal judgment. It's last statutory accounts show a revenue of over £100m per year. I will attempt to complete a more thorough review of secondary sources to support notability. Salicia7 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added the Nominet ruling as a citation, but struggled to find further secondary sources. However, in my view there is adequate references for a stub of this lenght. Salicia7 (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mere mentions do not meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for in-depth "independent content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see NCORP here either. Legal filings don't confer notability, as they are WP:PRIMARY. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narinder Batth

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

His work might seem notable, but the lack of coverage in reliable sources indicates that he is not notable Afstromen (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Music, Asia, India, and Punjab. Afstromen (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; did you look for punjabi language sources? AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I searched on Google in Punjabi, but the results did not satisfy the notability criteria.

Afstromen (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the English coverage is from India Times with these passing mentions: [37], [38], [39]. The Punjabi sources also contain passing mentions like these ones: [40] and [41]. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 14:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough notability to meet WP:COMPOSER. No awards or a major work. lancer is not notable enough. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mokamtala Secondary School

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

No reliable, secondary coverage about the school beyond the fact that it exists. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom Somajyoti ✉ 16:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Jhikargacha_Upazila#Education. --hroest 20:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. Not notable for alumni, staff or events. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. More sources would need to be found to bolster inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of longest prison sentences. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Scott Robinson

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

Violates WP:BLP1E. Should be redirected to List of longest prison sentences. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Oklahoma. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would very strongly oppose redirecting it there, that is not the kind of list we should be redirecting BLPs.

If there is better sourcing getting the longest prison sentence of all time is notable enough that it IMO invalidates the second prong of BLP1E. So then WP:NCRIMINAL is also a consideration. The sourcing I can find is not great so honestly he probably just fails the WP:GNG. But he does have an extremely generic name so I may be missing stuff. But unless there is more sourcing I failed to find, delete (Not redirect). PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose a redirect because redirecting to a BLP to that kind of list seems bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or smerge is as appropriate as the sentence. Bearian (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of longest prison sentences. Not seeing independent notability here, but also not seeing why a redirect is undesirable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Parbatipur–Panchagarh line. czar 00:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Panchagarh railway station

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

No indication of signifance. Every reference is the same identical announcement of name change back to the original name plus some route information. Fails WP:NCORP WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 16:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NTRAINSTATION says "train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations.". I didn't found any special notability of this station to meet GNG. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Parbatipur–Panchagarh line as ATD Jumpytoo Talk 16:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Parbatipur–Panchagarh line per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not notable as a separate article yet. Agreeing with merge to Parbatipur–Panchagarh line per WP:ATD. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Kocho killings

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

Cited entirely to breaking news. I searched, could find no sources that help notability. Does not pass WP:NEVENT. Probably could be merged somewhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Iraq. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; did you look for any arabic or kurdish language sources? AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for some variation of Kocho in Arabic plus the date and found nothing that seemed to be about this past the first month. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Support per nom. R3YBOl (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; From my viewing of the sources, I believe they are news and not extended articles. The article still does not meet the standards in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.113.115.249 (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chao Khamrop Road

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

Does not meet WP:NROAD or WP:GNG. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 04:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per JackFromWisconsin, both of their points are points where this article fail. Madeline1805 (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, perhaps to Pom Prap, the subdistrict the street is located in. There is in-depth coverage such as the cited Art & Culture article[42] and this short TV documentary[43], but there's only so much that could be said about this minor street, it'd be better off as a mention in a broader article about the wider neighbourhood. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability. Local road with very minor historical importance. Doesn't meet GNG. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 PATAFA Weekly Relay Series – Men's 5 kilometres walk

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

I see no independent WP:SIGCOV for this athletic event and don't really see a strong redirect target either. The only independent coverage I could find was three paragraphs in this article, and that's not enough for WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. Please ping me if significant coverage is found. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics and Philippines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to notability concerns. The Guidon, which is cited by the article, is a student publication. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'd trust the Guidon with quality reporting over other newspapers... Howard the Duck (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who are these competitors? Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James A. D. W. Anderson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/James A. D. W. Anderson (3rd nomination)

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

Mathematical crackpot with no meaningful impact on the field per WP:ACADEMIC, and no coverage in popular press since initial 2006 spotlight. Academic discourse on "transreal arithmetic" is mostly WP:SELFPUB, barring a couple of papers published in non-mathematical journals. Fishsicles (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, he does appear to be a crackpot. That might not be sufficient reason for deletion if he had a significant influence on mathematics, but as far as I can see he doesn't. Athel cb (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to other fields, mathematics is much more tolerant of what would normally be labelled "crackpots" - rejecting an established axiom or theory usually means building a contrasting theory, which can be mathematically interesting in its own right. (WP:CRACKPOT's term for this would be "alternative theoretical formulation".) That said, "transreal arithmetic" has absolutely not developed into a theory of any interest to mathematicians, which means I'm more than comfortable applying the label.

I think a particularly useful point of contrast is inter-universal Teichmüller theory, which also makes dramatic claims that are (in the opinion of many number theorists) not properly substantiated, but remains of significant academic interest for its potential applications. "Transreal arithmetic" has attracted no such attention, and the only one to claim applications is Anderson himself. Fishsicles (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is indeed the third nomination of this article, but it is the first under this exact title: the article was first sent to AfD in 2006 with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (mathematician) (which closed with no consensus), and the second nomination in 2008 was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (computer scientist) (which closed as keep). (While James Anderson (mathematician) ended up getting deleted in 2006, that was at RfD after the article was renamed shortly after the first AfD.) No opinion on the current nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Mathematics, Computing, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not worth a page and it is more about Transreal arithmetic than anything else. It is a transreal page, in a sense. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My concern is more basic than the issues raised above: there are whole paragraphs in a BLP that are unsourced. I'd be willing to cut down the article to a stub, but that would disrupt the discussion. Not sure how to proceed. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Anderson has been trying to market his ideas for transreal arithmetic and "Perspex machines" to investors. He claims that his work can produce computers which run "orders of magnitude faster than today's computers".[7][12] He has also claimed that it can help solve such problems as quantum gravity,[7] the mind-body connection,[13] consciousness[13] and free will.[13]" So, first of all, yes, that could be straight out of Underwood Dudley's book. Second, Anderson made one tiny news/blogosphere splash nearly two decades ago, and there's nothing else to go on. This merits maybe two lines in whatever article talks about mathematical crankery, not a whole biography. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the article is deleted, this redirects should too, unless there's a bot that does it:

Perspective simplex Transreal number Transreal numbers Perspex machine Transreal Computing Ltd Transreal arithmetic James Anderson (computer scientist) Nullity (number)

and the link in James A. Anderson — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The past discussions are old but then so are the sources on which the article is based, so I think we can let their decision on the value of those sources stand. As for what he might have done since then, I don't see enough in Google Scholar to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF and I didn't find any recent news about him that might provide new evidence of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki Shepard

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

I doubt the article meets the standards for notability. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 13:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 13:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Texas. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 13:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very much a WP:HEY candidate; being a co-host of a major syndicated show for fifteen years easily clinches WP:N and sourcing to get her over GNG should be very easy. Nathannah • 📮 19:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : I don't find much coverage, this reads like a rewritten press release with no real author [44]. Gnewspapers brings up a similarly named individual on Broadway in the 1970s, I'm unsure if it's the same person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is the same person. She performed in Broadway before her time on the Apollo. – The Grid (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has to be newspaper or textbook sources, I'm just in disbelief there's limited sources. – The Grid (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only sources I found are passing mentions or not reliable. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added sourced content to the article. I invite editors to re-visit and possibly re-evaluate it. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great job, Teblick! I was getting there with internet sources but the newspaper sources definitely helped here. Keep per WP:HEY. – The Grid (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Grid, I'm glad that I could help. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Want to ping the previous delete votes (Oaktree b and Itzcuauhtli11) if they wish to re-elevate their stance, as the article has improved greatly since their votes. – The Grid (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the coverage is better, with the new sources added. Appears mostly local coverage, but it spans several decades, so shows notability. Looks good, not great, but enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hope for Hong Kong

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

Page for a defunct centrist faction of the Hong Kong Liberal party. Four citations all to local news that stops with the collapse of this group. Considering they were a minor faction that never really accomplished anything and then folded its unlikely there will be more coverage in the future which means four local newspaper articles is likely what we've got. Lacking WP:SIGCOV I'd say delete it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think it is clear that the party did fulfil GNG/NORG with those sources and this AFD seems to focus more on whether it deserves a standalone article. The article currently includes four sources from the Hong Kong Economic Times and HK01, both of which are credible media outlets and generally reliable sources on zhwiki (see WP:HKRS#HKET and WP:HKRS#HK01), rather than some small-scale local tabloids. The coverage in this HKET article[45] and this HK01 article[46] appear to be adequately significant to me. The corresponding article on zhwiki also includes a few sources from Initium Media and Citizen News, and I found more news coverage during the party's operational period, such as a Ming Pao article about legal scholar Jack Lee [zh] announcing his decision to join the party.[47] There are also some commentaries on this party, like an Initium Media article thoroughly analyzing whether this party's centrist stance has any chance of survival in Hong Kong,[48] as well as opinion pieces from Ta Kung Pao and Orange News discussing potential reasons for founder James Tien to establish the party and his future political agenda.[49][50] I personally do not believe being defunct or a party's achievements are relevant to notability, especially since the founding members are all notable politicians (James Tien, Selina Chow, Miriam Lau, Felix Chung, Lam Man-kit [zh]), not just random people forming a joke party or something. The nom is absolutely right that there has been a significant drop in media coverage about this party after its closure. But the coverage we got is more than sufficient for a GNG pass, and Wikipedia also records history, so a notable political party, even if it no longer exists, is still worth documenting. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 15:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the sources I think it's actually incorrect to call it a party - it was formed as a corporation to circumvent normal party formation requirements. However I still think the absence of any coverage outside of HK and the fact that it didn't have WP:LASTING coverage override the bare presence of a few sources. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LASTING applies only to events, not defunct organizations. I also do not see any issues with notability merely because the coverage is local. Sources with a regional audience can still serve as strong evidence of notability per WP:AUD. The media outlets listed above, like HKET or HK01 or Initium, are among the most credible sources in Hong Kong. I think it is entirely reasonable for a local organization to operate solely within its region and exert local influence. It does not need to expand its influence to a global level or be reported by English-language sources to be considered notable (non-English sources are perfectly acceptable per WP:NONENG). Otherwise, it would promote an Anglo-centric bias on Wikipedia by rejecting subjects that have not received international or English-language coverage. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 16:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would at least expect SCMP or similar to mention it if this group had even regional significance. Like we're not talking about press coverage limited to one country or to one province. We're talking about press coverage limited to one city. Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the term "regional" in WP:AUD (which is pipe-linked to Newspaper#Local or regional: A local newspaper serves a region such as a city, or part of a large city) is perfect for the case of Hong Kong, and I do not really understand the logic here: SCMP is still a local newspaper and should be dismissed if you are expecting coverage outside of Hong Kong specifically. I do not see a significant difference between SCMP and the Hong Kong Economic Times or Ming Pao aside from one being in English and the others in Chinese, which brings me back to my point about WP:NONENG. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 17:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Prince of Erebor's sources have shown that Hope for Hong Kong (traditional Chinese: 希望聯盟; simplified Chinese: 希望联盟) meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. I agree with Prince of Erebor's comments in response to the nominator. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says, "Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability." The Hong Kong Economic Times and HK01 are major regional publications, so the audience requirement is met. There is no requirement for there to be sources outside of Hong Kong or for the South China Morning Post to cover it. This political party is not an event, so there is no requirement for it to pass Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Lasting effects. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the points raised by Prince of Erebor and Cunard. This political group was more than a mere faction of the Liberal party.

SigillumVert (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Ambati

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

fails WP:NACTOR. Theroadislong (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Theroadislong (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should be kept as Arjun Ambati is a notable figure in the Telugu film industry. He has a significant filmography, with key roles in well-known projects, and his work has been covered by various media outlets. Additionally, he has a Google Knowledge Panel, which is an indicator of recognition and notability in the public domain.

I am working on adding more reliable sources, including interviews and articles from established media, to strengthen the article. His contributions to the industry further demonstrate his standing and relevance.

Thank you for considering my input. Kanthrajmys (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Google knowledge panel does not mean anything in terms of notability at Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 08:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – there is no coverage at all of him in independent sources, much less any significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 08:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback and for reviewing the article. I would like to gently highlight that Arjun Ambati has been covered by independent and reliable sources such as The Times of India, Eenadu, Sakshi, and Andhra Jyothy. His work in Telugu television and cinema has also been featured on platforms like Gemini TV and Telugu Filmnagar. While I understand that a Google Knowledge Panel alone doesn't establish notability, it does suggest public interest and recognition. I’m continuing to improve the article by adding more reliable sources.
Thanks again for your time and consideration. Kanthrajmys (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are concerns about the sufficiency of the coverage, I am happy to move this article to the draft space and continue working on it. However, I believe the current available sources demonstrate significant notability for Arjun Ambati. His coverage in reputed national outlets, such as:
Pinkvilla (13 August 2021) - A review of Sundari, featuring his role.

The Times of India - Official trailer for Theppa Samudram.

IndiaTimes (31 July 2024) - Information on the OTT release of Theppa Samudram.

News18 - Announcement of his role in RC16.
These sources indicate notable attention from major national platforms, alongside his extensive career, including 10 films and numerous TV/web series.

If this is not sufficient for immediate approval, I am more than willing to move it to draft space and continue gathering additional sources or improving the article further. Kanthrajmys (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India is not generally considered a reliable source and we need sources that cover him in depth, not passing mentions or listings. Theroadislong (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have updated the references. All the articles mentioned include Arjun’s name in the headline itself, not just as a passing mention within the content. The sources cited include Deccan Chronicle, News18, Pinkvilla, Jagran, Telugu Times, India Times, and The Times of India.

Also, could you please clarify why The Times of India is not considered a reliable source? It is ranked third in terms of circulation among newspapers in India. Kanthrajmys (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite his modest role, it is evident that he has participated in numerous films, television series, and reality shows. However, there is an absence of significant coverage. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We have improvised the article with more relevant references. Please review and share your feedback Kanthrajmys (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. Charlie (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Elizabeth of York. ✗plicit 13:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Tudor of England

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

No evidence of actual notability for this princess who lived for just 8 days. I suggest redirecting to Elizabeth of York#Death and aftermath or another target if someone can suggest a better one. Fram (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Royalty and nobility, and England. Fram (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question No notability for a Princess that is mentioned in over 50 different historical books? Govvy (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. Is she mentioned as anything else than the infant of Elizabeth of York and Henry VII which died after a few days? Is there a reason to have a separate article instead of just a redirect? Let's take e.g. the first Google Books hit: Tudor: The Faily History. She is a name in a family tree, and the complete text about her in this specialized book: "Two more children would die as infants: Edmund, born in 1499, and Katherine in 1503". The most I can find are a few lines, which just repeat what's said at the redirect target: birth, death, death of mother.[51] Fram (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: There is such a thing as being notable through nobility, regardless of the length of life. It's just your choice of words. In fact, its a fatal floor in wikipedia to choose these words. As always, it's how you use the information you have. To me, choosing the right wording is important. Govvy (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And here I thought notability is not inherited. I must have missed the note that said that anyone is notable by force of being born from the right parents, no matter if their life had actually any real world impact beyond their direct family. Fram (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elizabeth of York per nom. The largest part of this article is based on identifying her siblings and parents, which is information that already appears in her parents' articles. I am not surprised that Katherine is mentioned in historical books, but I would guess that those "mentions" are quite brief because she only lived for a few days. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. Even if there is significant coverage, this doesn't seem worth an article. The sources look quite poor on this one; there's an AQA book and Tudor Times doesn't look like a reliable source - the About Us page is empty. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom - was going to suggest her father's page as a better target (he being more notable than her mother), till I actually read Fram's suggested target and I now see it's the better one as her birth contributed to her mother's death. PamD 07:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if we even need this redirect. I guess it does no real harm, but "Katherine Tudor of England" is a name not used in any books or websites and seems to be an invention by the article creator. Fram (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete as above. I also strongly object to the silly article title. The article should have been expanded or discussed at the original articles Katherine Tudor (1503) and Katherine Tudor, Princess of England, not created as a new one: see Help:Your first article#Search for an existing article. This looks like an attempt to subvert the redirection of those articles by creating the same article at a different title. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elizabeth of York: A very minor historical figure, mentioned in history books. But not notable enough to deserve her own article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all of the above. Same situation as Katherine Tudor (1503) and Katherine Tudor, Princess of England. An 8-day old child cannot be notable. Keivan.f^Talk 17:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elizabeth of York I agree that redirecting makes the most sense here. Lacks notability to justify her own page but the information is still good enough to justify inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Engineering & Science College

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

Not a Notable College. Lacks secondary sources. Hardly any online presence of this organization. Fails GNG. Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, Engineering, and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Per WP:CSK#3, no valid rationale for deletion has been presented, if nothing else. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bahishti Zewar

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

There is no doubt that the subject is notable as a book. However, the authorship of the book is highly disputed, and even the content variations are debatable. This issue has been discussed by Ahlehaqmedia, a scholarly website. In its current form, the article would need to be entirely rewritten based on reliable sources. Given the present structure and sourcing, it is not suitable as a standalone article. I propose redirecting it to the article on Ashraf Ali Thanwi.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:DINC 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Easily meets WP:NBOOK and WP:N for its religious significance. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ashraf Ali Thanwi (one of the authors that has a wiki page). I don't think this is enough for notability and not for a stand alone article. Not much is mentioend in the article currently either. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep !votes are arguments to avoid, more input needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it meets books notability guidelines. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Christoph of Hohenlohe-Langenburg

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

The significance of the person is not shown. Only genealogical information and the cause of his death are given. – RobertVikman 13:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prince Alfonso of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (his father) per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came here expecting this to be an easy delete !vote on a non-notable minor noble. However, a web search for "christoph zu hohenlohe", one version of his German name, turns up a bunch of significant coverage: [52][53][54], most of it about his death but some from long afterwards (that last link is from 2020). I'm gonna do a deeper dive for sourcing, but I'm leaving this here for now. Toadspike [Talk] 13:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is English-language sigcov on his death the Independent article already cited in the article [55], and French/German coverage in "L'étrange mort d' un noble lausannois", L'Illustré, 16.08.2006 by Arnaud Bédat; "Prinzessin Ira von Fürstenberg «Man hat meinen Sohn umgebracht»", Glückspost, 17.08.2006, by Marco Hirt and Roswitha vom Bruck;"Ende eines Genfer Jetset-Prinzen", Tages-Anzeiger, 11.08.2006, by Bernhard Hülsebusch. There is also an article over 1000 words long in the Sonntagsblick of 20.08.2006, titled "Keine Maiglöckchen im Knast", by Helmut-Maria Glogger.

Good search terms include "Christoph von Hohenlohe", "Christoph Prinz von Hohenlohe", "Christoph zu Hohenlohe", "Christoph Prinz zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg" (which appears to be his full and correct title), and "Christoph Vittorio Umberto" (his full first names). I see some articles from the time saying that his death was first reported in the Italian press, which I do not have great access too – for instance, my sources mention his brother and mother speaking to the Corriere della Sera, but I cannot find the original coverage in that paper. (The article current links to an English translation of a Corriere article, but this doesn't quote Ira, so clearly there was more.)

I don't think BLP1E or BIO1E preclude an article here, but in case that comes up I've also found some indications that he received significant coverage before his death. He is mentioned repeatedly in articles about his mother, Ira von Fürstenberg (a very underdeveloped article – she seems to have been quite famous). In a 1978 interview of Ira in the Schweizer Illustrierte, Christoph is mentioned several times, not least when the interviewer asks "Christoph hat anscheinend, wie man in den Zeitungen lesen kann, einen Riesenerfolg bei Frauen." ("Christoph clearly has, as one can read in the newspapers, great success with women.") – so he was clearly being covered elsewhere, too. Toadspike [Talk] 14:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you specified contain information about him. But the information specified there does not give him significance according to any of Wikipedia's criteria of significance.

When some aristocrat or any other famous person dies, they write about him in the news.

But neither the sources nor the article show significance according to which the article could be saved. RobertVikman (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's coverage of his activities as a socialite and of his bizarre death. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not provide anything other than the cause of death and genealogy. What significance criterion does this article meet? RobertVikman (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you did a proper WP:BEFORE search, you would see his philanthropic work. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not describe his activities in any way, and since I did not find anything about his activities on the Internet, I cannot be sure of the veracity of your words. RobertVikman (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the father. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his father Prince Alfonso of Hohenlohe-Langenburg. Not seeing notability as a socialite. Not enough for stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion about whether to keep or redirect, per Toadspike's comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Eddie Seah

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

Fails WP:CRIME. Nothing exceptionally unusual about this parricide, with just a blip of media notice in October 2024. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Laos at the 1996 Summer Olympics. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poutavanh Phengthalangsy

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

Declined prod. All the sources are databases. No evidence of SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Laos. LibStar (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laos at the 1996 Summer Olympics where the person's name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laos at the 1996 Summer Olympics: No sources except databases. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laos at the 1996 Summer Olympics: Subject doesn't appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources are databases and I couldn't find anything better elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very unique name. Search came up flat FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Laos article, where one could briefly note his status as the lead-off man for the relay team. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laos at the 1996 Summer Olympics as the subject doesn't have enough notability. Quick check on Google didn't provide any significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy House

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

Alright -- the subject of this article fails WP:GNG, and notability for companies because of lack of WP:SIGCOV, and WP:SUSTAINED in WP:RS. There are lots of sources, but they are either WP:ROUTINE, very old announcements of the opening, or not independent. This article has serious NPOV issues to go along with that -- seems like advertising and promotion. This article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Washington. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep: The article is in desperate need for and update and rewrite, but I found a few local newspaper sources about the subject [56] [57] [58] [59] and a mention in Time Magazine [60]. These articles aren't very old and are independent. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on their authors, the first two seem to be press releases. The third one I cannot read due to a paywall, so I don't know if it's good or not. However, since the fourth barely talks about Legacy House at all (not sigcov) that doesn't really matter. Toadspike [Talk] 20:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete if we're considering NCORP, there is no significant coverage outside of a couple local/routine articles, failing WP:AUD. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nearly all the sources cited are from the subject or its owner (not independent). The sources linked above aren't enough to meet NCORP. A quick web search didn't turn up anything better. Toadspike [Talk] 20:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Negousse Mengistou

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The article currently only has references to databases, and all I could find in secondary sources was a namedrop at [[61]]. Let'srun (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Ethiopia. Let'srun (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; summoning @Habst, as this is their area of expertise. I can't immediately find any english coverage of this person, but then again the sources are most likely to be smaller Ethiopian newspapers from the 50s and 60s written in amharic. I will keep looking for sources. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that "smaller Ethiopian newspapers" covered cyclists. Not all sports get much coverage in every country at every time. Anyway, Wikipedia's current rules state that the coverage must be uncovered before creating articles, not after. Geschichte (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonymousScholar49, I appreciate being called an expert, but I am just another editor like you. The subject's Amharic name is ንጉሴ መንግስቱ, and it is used in a few articles ([62] [63] (use webarchive)), but mostly mentions that I can find. He might be covered in Jack Trickey's interview considering he was one of two cyclists to run into him, but we can't say that for sure as it's paywalled.

And for the record, not to be semantic but SPORTCRIT only mandates that SIGCOV must exist in articles, not from their inception; that rule was not in place at the time this article was created in 2014. --Habst (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know full well that SPORTCRIT unambiguously requires citation to IRS SIGCOV for all athletes, regardless of when the article was made. Obviously it would not be possible for pre-2022 articles to have met the "from inception" criterion; that language was struck so SPORTCRIT #5 could be applied to them. JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of the required IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IBM and World War II

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

IBM's collaboration with Nazi Germany is already covered in the article about the book, so that part is duplicated here. The United States part is not notable enough for a separate article. I think this article is best deleted, or the US part is extended and this article is moved to something like IBM assistance to the United States government during World War II. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Germany, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't really understand the problem. The topic of this page is undoubtedly notable. There is another page titled IBM and the Holocaust which is specifically about a book published under that title. Whether that latter page is notable or not is moot given it doesn't appear to be nominated for deletion. To me this nomination is doomed to failure given that the scope of the other page is clearly a book (and the book is clearly about a specific part of IBM history) and whilst it overlaps with the topic of this nom-ed page, by definition doesn't encompass it. Renaming pages or moving to redlinks is not normally something we discuss at AfD. JMWt (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My primary suggestion is to delete the page. AfDs can result in a consensus to merge or redirect so I don't really see the problem. The topic might be notable but the article feels like WP:SYNTH, the sources talk about specific parts of the article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Well we don't redirect to redlinks, so there's your answer. I don't have anything to add on your other points. JMWt (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to summarize, we now have the following articles that summarize info about IBMs involvement during WWII:
- IBM and the Holocaust
- Business collaboration with Nazi Germany
- This article
- History of IBM

I would say that's a bit much. As an alternative proposal to deletion, I would suggest dramatically shortening the book article and moving that info here. The book is considered a reliable source, but using it in the book article is undue weight due to it being a primary source. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IBM and the Holocaust is an article on a specific book (full title:IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation) by Edwin Black and not an overall topic; Business collaboration with Nazi Germany is about overall business collaboration with Nazi Germany (so not specific to IBM); History of IBM is an overall company history and not specific to their WWII history. I do think that this article should be built out, but I think IBM's WWII history-which ranges from the US Army's use of punch cards (a good example is highlighted in The Fog of War and described in depth by Robert McNamara and not to mention it assigned Major Major Major the rank of Major in Catch-22) to their involvement in the Holocaust and how IBM was able to profit off both sides of the war technically through Dehomag-does deserve a standalone article. That there are parts of IBM's WWII history in other articles is not a valid reason to delete an article specific to the topic. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the book article is about the book, but the summary section in that article basically duplicates the current article. With the exception of the US-side, which is why I originally suggested to move that to a different article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I recommend expanding the current article. I fail to see how a summary in an article of a book about a subject merits a deletion of an article on the actual subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because of how extensive the summary is in the book article. Random example: Berlin: The Downfall 1945. It is described in a single sentence, and link to the articles in case that describe it in-depth. I think that is fine. My point for opening this AfD was because I don't think it's a good idea to duplicate the information across multiple articles. I'm not necessarily proposing removing it from the book article, though. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a good reason to delete. If anything, then the summary of IBM and the Holocaust should be pared down so it isn't as detailed. I would also support moving IBM and the Holocaust to IBM and the Holocaust (book) so that it doesn't give off the impression that is an article of the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's do that then. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to All You Need Is Luv'. ✗plicit 13:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Stop Now (Ladies On Mars Remix)

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

No evidence found of notability, best source is this blog already included in the articlev, looking through Google and Google News revealed no reliable sources discussing the song. Should be redirected to All You Need Is Luv'. Fram (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reason (and same redirect target):

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per lack of sources. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both per nom, ATD, PRESERVE, and CHEAP. Not each song deserves an article. Sometimes just the artist. Otherwise neither. Thanks, Fram, for suggesting a fine ATD upfront! gidonb (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H Elovitz

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. An article referenced entirely by Elovitz's own publications. Did reach associate professor level at Temple University; a long publication history, but Scopus shows limited impact (H-index=3), although that seems to be missing his pre-1996 work. Klbrain (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I could only find 2 academic reviews of a book that he co-edited: [64] [65] which is not enough for WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. However, he was the founder and editor in chief of Clio's Psyche which could contribute to WP:NPROF#8 but I dont know how "well established" that journal is. --hroest 21:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That journal is open access and publishes three to four issues per year; it's not listed by Journal Citation Reports so doesn't have an impact factor - that doesn't count as a well-established journal in my view. Klbrain (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing in his publication record that comes close to passing WP:NPROF, particularly as an associate professor of a small liberal arts college. Page contains multiple unsourced WP:Peacock paragraphs and the listed publications are from Pyschohistory News which is an unrefereed newsletter. If this AfD was not going on I would add a {{dubious}} to the page. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment regarding Dr. Paul Elovitz's notability according to WP:NACADEMIC

Related to Klbrain #1: Beyond reaching Associate Professor at Temple University, in later years Dr. Paul Elovitz was a Full Professor of History at Ramapo College, NJ retiring from his role in 1992. Also, at Ramapo College, Dr. Elovitz introduced courses that integrated Psychology and History, establishing his own curriculums in "Psychohistory" - which is a significant accomplishment for a historian: Integration of any psychological concepts into the field of history were previously met with resistance and scrutiny.

Related to hroest: Clio's Psyche is a peer-reviewed publication that was established over 30 years ago. It's peer review process is rigorous, involving a minimum of 5 peer reviewers from different fields of knowledge, such as: Psychology, psychoanalysis, anthropology, history, medicine and others. The standard for other well established peer reviewed journals is typically 2 peer-reviewers. The reason for Clio's Psyche utilizing 5 or more peer reviewers is the transdisciplinary nature of Psychohistory. Also, it is one of very few psychohistorical journals. Another journal that publishes psychohistorical materials is The Journal of Psychohistory.

Related to Klbrain #2: Starting in 2025, Clio's Psyche is being converted to electronic/searchable format and included in the CrossRef database with DOI numbers assigned. This process is still continuing, and will be finalized by September 2025. PepWeb is in the process of acquiring access to all Clio's Psyche issues, when the electronic conversion is done.

Related to LDM1954: Temple University is where Dr. Paul Elovitz started his career, but it was a short time. Dr. Paul Elovitz went on to a full professorship at Ramapo College.

Dr. Elovitz was elected as president of The International Psychohistorical Association, a 48 year old international organization. He is the only living contributor to every years annual conference of the organization. This year, May 23-25, 2025 will be the 48th annual conference of the International Psychohistorical Association.

Based on this input, what content do we need to clean and/or add into Dr. Elovitz's article to meet standards?

Thank you for your time. PsychologyAdvocate (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PsychologyAdvocate, you have misunderstood what makes an academic notable. All academics create courses, run conferences, many have elected positions in societies, these are routine for academics, please read WP:MILL. We require citations, favorable book reviews and/or major awards to demonstrate that peers consider them notable. None of what you mention above is relevant, sorry. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ldm1954, thank you for your feedback, this is helpful!

In the meantime, we will be revising the current article showing notability. We will be structurally basing the article on Dr. Otto Kernberg's Wikipedia page, showing that the institutions (The Psychohistory Forum) Dr. Elovitz created as well as the peer-reviewed journal (Clio's Psyche) are transdisciplinary and unique. For example, Clio's Psyche is one of two existing peer-reviewed psychohistorical journals; and The Psychohistory Forum, which has a 40yr history, is a place for academicians, clinicians, students and professors, across diverse fields of knowledge, coming together to discuss and help each other in their work in a hands-on manner - laying a foundation for the field of Psychohistory.

Uniqueness often is difficult to compare. Do you have a recommendation for describing pioneering work?

Thank you in advance for your time. PsychologyAdvocate (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Until his peers recognize the work there is nothing you can do. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, we are very conservative about what we accept.

N.B., don't use that article, it is awful as I just indicated on it. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does “we” mean more than one person? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only primary sources in the article. I didn't find any SIGCOV in RS. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much in terms of WP:RS sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he does not seem to pass WP:GNG and I am not at all convinced of him passing WP:NPROF, the issue is that the field of Psychohistory itself is considered WP:FRINGE and so it is difficult to make the argument that he has been recognized by peers as an outstanding scholar if many of his peers believe what he is doing is pseudoscience (at least it clearly doesnt pass the WP:CHOPSY test). --hroest 15:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nominator expressed they might withdraw their nomination but were suggested to let it run it's course. It was pointed that WP:GNG is met - as cited in the discussion. The consensus was unanimous keep. (non-admin closure) HilssaMansen19 (talk) 07:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Tom Seaver

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

I'm more concerned that the statue's notability is inherent rather than independent, despite the sources. Sure, detailing the statue is nice for readers to know, but such relevant info is mergeable into the parent article, Tom Seaver § Awards and honors. Also, I can't help wonder whether the article as-is violates WP:NOTNEWS or WP:NOTEVERYTHING. George Ho (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Baseball, and New York. George Ho (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being the creator of this article, I suppose I should give the reasoning behind this. I'd argue keep; the statue notable in it being the first - and, to date, only - MLB park statue in NYC. Its also one of the few statues of sportspeople in NYC in general, depicting an iconic cultural figure of the city. Its also one of the few noteworthy statues in Queens, New York.

Its also a statue which was long fought for and which caused considerable controversey due to the timing of its announcement after the depictee's diagnosis with dementia and, a year later, untimely death. There is more than enough reasonable info about the statue itself to justify a fork, rather than unnecessarily loading up the main article with extra details about the controversy surrounding the statue. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG and per Omnis Scientia. I could repeat much of what they say above, and argue further for keeping this unique and important statue, but what comes to mind about this nomination is, why? Randy Kryn (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what comes to mind about this nomination is, why? Maybe you'll see me as too prejudiced, but do I need to explain myself about something this obvious? If that's not obvious, I'll ask this: Do we need (a flood of) other articles about statues of certain athletes, like this person? Sure, a statue is of an honor, but a standalone article about this statue... Seriously, is this suitable for the project? Other than the inscription,( I see no other content that is not mergeable to the parent article, IMO. I fail to see how this article would grow over time, honestly. (No offense to the article creator.) George Ho (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not obvious while both reading the article and noticing its references. This is the first statue placed outside one of the ballparks in New York City, it honors a person many consider the team's all-time greatest player, and was placed while Seaver was still alive in hopes that he would be aware of it. Statues regularly have articles on Wikipedia, including many pages about sport statues. Notable in several directions. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to have significant coverage in NY Times and, to a lesser extent, the NY Daily News and Reuters. The proposed statue had coverage several years before it was actually unveiled, and there was also some coverage in CBS Sports and Fox News about the statue having an incorrect jersey number. I think the nominator's argument of WP:NOTEVERYTHING isn't exactly applicable here, since one could just rebut with WP:NOTPAPER. However, I will say that the sourcing I found isn't enough to expand this beyond more than a start-class article, at least for the moment. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the initiator, I may have to withdraw this nomination if there are no "delete" or "merge" votes within very short time (i.e. reasonably shorter time than a week) if not less than a week. —George Ho (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to. You can just wait for the natural course of the discussion. MarioGom (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mario on this one. Let it run its course. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. While there could be an argument to merge with the Tom Seaver article (though not delete), the statue is a separate entity from the person, and so is appropriate for a standalone article, and a detailed discussion of the statue within the Tom Seaver article would give it undue weight in that article. Rlendog (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OceanWorld 3D

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find any suitable references or reviews that prove WP:NFILM. Seeking a redirect to Disneynature. Anarchyte (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Animal, and Disney. Anarchyte (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added a review from CineMagazine, which is a WP:RS. Another review would be needed to pass WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 12:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Turkish film magazine Sinema has written something about the film: [66]. Low res scan, hard to even transcribe that. --Mika1h (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Kurniasari, Triwik (2009-11-15). "The wonders of the sea in 3D: About 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered with water, and most of that is made up by the ocean". The Jakarta Post. Archived from the original on 2025-05-16. Retrieved 2025-05-16.
  The article notes: "OceanWorld 3D is the first feature-length nature documentary ever filmed and released in 3D, using the 3D large format underwater digital, boasting naturally beautiful views you can also smell and touch, thanks to the filmmakers' use of natural lighting. The 85-minute movie was created by Jean-Michel Cousteau, son of the celebrated underwater explorer Jacques-Yves Cousteau, directed by Jean-Jacques Mantello, and co-produced by Disneynature and 3D Entertainment chairman Francois Mantello ... OceanWorld 3D is reminiscent of Pixar's animated movie Finding Nemo, a comedic yet eventful journey ... The film also reminds us to appreciate the richness of the ocean, as well as to preserve its biodiversity."
2. Kay, Jeremy (2009-06-10). "Disneynature takes OceanWorld 3D for North America, Mexico". Screen Daily. Archived from the original on 2025-05-16. Retrieved 2025-05-16.
  The article notes: "Disneynature has acquired North American and Mexican rights to 3D Entertainment’s OceanWorld 3D, the first feature-length nature documentary filmed in 3D. OceanWorld 3D premiered at the Cannes market in May and will be released theatrically in France and Russia in August. The North American release date will be announced in due course. The film explores the world’s oceans and their wildlife from the Great Barrier Reef in Australia and Argentina’s Peninsula Valdez to Mexico’s Roca Partida Island."
3. Heinen, Frank (2011-02-01). "OceanWorld 3D (2009)". Cinemagazine (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 2025-05-16. Retrieved 2025-05-16.
  The review notes: "In ‘Oceanworld 3D’ zien we de wonderlijke onderwaterwereld door de ogen van een migrerende zeeschildpad. Bruisende koraalriffen, die fungeren als ware eldorado’s voor een bonte verscheidenheid aan kleurrijke vissen en schaaldieren, ondiepe kustwateren en de onmetelijke blauwe leegte die de open oceaan vaak is, alle zeebiotopen komen in feite aan bod in deze onder supervisie van Jean-Michel Cousteau (de zoon van de illustere documentairemaker en oceaanverkenner Jacques) geproduceerde documentaire. Qua vorm is ‘Oceanworld’ een aparte film. Niet alleen speelt de film handig in op de huidige hype rondom 3D-producties, maar opvallend genoeg wordt het verhaal verteld door een reizende zeeschildpad."
  From Google Translate: "In ‘Oceanworld 3D’ we see the wonderful underwater world through the eyes of a migrating sea turtle. Vibrant coral reefs, which function as true Eldorados for a colorful variety of colorful fish and crustaceans, shallow coastal waters and the immense blue emptiness that the open ocean often is, all marine biotopes are in fact covered in this documentary produced under the supervision of Jean-Michel Cousteau (the son of the illustrious documentary maker and ocean explorer Jacques). In terms of form, ‘Oceanworld’ is a special film. Not only does the film cleverly play into the current hype surrounding 3D productions, but remarkably enough the story is told by a traveling sea turtle."
4. "Okyanus Dünyasi" [OceanWorld 3D]. Sinema [tr] (in Turkish). October 2009. p. 14. Retrieved 2025-05-16 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "Belgesel, dünyamızın yaşam kaynağı clan okyanusların içinde barındırdığı güzelliği ve cesitliliği mahtesem görün- tülerle anlatıyor. İzleyiciler deniz kaplumbağa-hrının rehberliğinde Avustralya'dan Arjantin'e ve Meksika yakınlarındaki Roca Partida Adasa'na yani köpekbalıklarının evine doğru büyü leyici bir yolculuğa çıkıyor. Seyirci yolculuk boyunca köpekbaldarmin avlanmalarımı, yunus- ları oyunlarım ve çesit cesit balığın dansini izliyor; deniz canlılarının yaşamlarına yakından sahit oluyor. Notlar: Jean-Jacques ve François Mantello kardeşler 40 dakikalık ve 3 boyutlu gösterilen 3 belgeselden (Ocean Wonderland, Sharks, Dolphins and Whales 3D: Tribes of the Ocean) sonra ilk uzun metraja belgesellerine imza attı. Yine 3 boyutlu gösterilecek olan "Oceanworld" tam 7 yıllık çalışmanın ürünü. Bu belgesel için 25 farklı bölgede toplem 200 santlik çekim yapıldı. Yani bir açıdan önceki ic belgeselin birleştirilmiş ve genişletilmiş versiyo nu da denebilir "Oceanworld" için. Belgeselin anlaticist ise, Fransız sinemasın yükselen yıl diz ve Oscar' aktrisi Marion Cotillard."
  From Google Translate: "The documentary tells the beauty and diversity of the oceans, which are the source of life on our world, with magnificent images. Under the guidance of a sea turtle, the audience goes on a fascinating journey from Australia to Argentina and to Roca Partida Island near Mexico, the home of sharks. Throughout the journey, the audience watches sharks hunting, dolphins playing and various fish dancing; they witness the lives of marine creatures up close. Notes: After 3 40-minute documentaries screened in 3D (Ocean Wonderland, Sharks, Dolphins and Whales 3D: Tribes of the Ocean), Jean-Jacques and François Mantello brothers have made their first feature-length documentary. "Oceanworld", which will also be screened in 3D, is the product of 7 years of work. A total of 200 centimeters of shooting was done in 25 different regions for this documentary. In other words, "Oceanworld" can be considered a combined and expanded version of the previous documentary. The narrator of the documentary is French cinema's rising star and Oscar-winning actress Marion Cotillard."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow OceanWorld 3D to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Disneynature: The film doesn't seem notable enough. Sources provided doesn't seem independent or reliable. The Screen Daily one looks like a press release. Cine Magazine isn't a RS. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cine Magazine has been used as a RS for dozens of AfDs over the years. Consensus says it is. Regardless, Cunard has listed multiple other citations that you failed to evaluate. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on why is Cine Magazine a reliable source? Seems to me it's an online magazine, where anyone can apply to be a film reviewer, and those film reviewers aren't paid for the position. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources listed above are enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep strong, upon checking the additional sources, it does meet WP:GNG. Not arguing about maybe a redirect/merge but definitely not a deletion per WP:ATD. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎Speedy Keep. Clear consensus below that no valid rationale for deletion has been given. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers characters

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

I think this article should be deleted because it primarily only serves people who have a large interest in the fictional characters, otherwise it serves no use to anyone else. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup and this is a notable list that is in poor shape, it should be rewritten and not deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am going to WP:AGF but the nomination isn't convincing. I have a hard time believing this isn't suitable for an article. Suitable for clean-up? Certainly. But AFD isn't the place for that discussion. Archrogue (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per criterion 3, No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. The argument advanced neither cites, nor hints at, anything in WP:DEL#REASON. Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, no valid reason for deletion given - not something to waste a week on. Geschichte (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - deletion is not cleanup, and whilst there are sourcing issues the list is notable and meets the requirement, and no proper deletion rationale has been given. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Nomination is not convincing, and the user who nominated is blocked for POINT violations. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 04:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Nominator has been blocked for incivility, which indicates a bad faith nomination. There is room for disagreement and letting a reasonable discussion run its course, but no need to let this one continue. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of the other users. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 06:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lamanske

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

No notable coverage in the press, the only sources were compilers with data about the player's performance DankPedia (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and Baseball. DankPedia (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - my own search came up empty--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BeanieFan11. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG like every MLB player, see e.g. headline stories such as this, and other things such as this and this among others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add those to the article DankPedia (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can add them too. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MLB players are notable. Spanneraol (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11.-- Yankees10 23:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources found by @BeanieFan11 prove notability.
Shrug02 (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Clearly a BEFORE fail and another example of why the old NSPORT participation criteria for baseball players (perhaps with some adjustment) would keep us from wasting editor time. Rlendog (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG, clearly closing NSPORT was a grevious mistake done me a group of people that didn't know better. Wizardman 01:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, its discontinuation has been a huge benefit to Wikipedia. Swathes of non-articles are being cleaned up continuously. Geschichte (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some benefits, some terrible detriments. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per GNG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 12:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 06:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Bat Cave

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

Subject does not appear to be notable upon search - there are articles such as the Austin Chronicle, but they are not WP:SIGCOV so there's no reason to presume that the subject is notable. The current state of the article also only has one reference, which is their own website. Also slight WP:NPOV issues. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, I have begun to add references to the article and fix the language. I am still finding more refs, but it is already a very different article than what it was before. StonyBrook _babble 09:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This literacy organization meets GNG and NCORP by way of the following newspaper articles that are available via the Newspaper Archive & Newspapers.com (requires access): Daily Texan (9 Nov 2015) Nonprofit Austin Bat Cave teaches, publishes children's creative writing which is a front page newspaper feature article (two pages long, with photo); Brownsville Herald a half-page article (29 July 2019) with four photographs Expressive Project: Teaching writing is as important as reading; Lockhart Post Register (8 September 2022) Evening with the Authors a paragraph on the founder of Austin Bat Cave; The Paducah Sun (18 July 2019) Is teaching writing as important as teaching reading? feature article with three photos of Austin Bat Cave, later picked up by the The Saginaw News 23 August 2019) and circulated nationally; Austin American-Statesman (12 Jan 2017) Out - several paragraphs and a photo of the founder; Austin American-Statesman (16 April 2011) Tutors with Austin Bat Cave help students get their wings - feature article with photo on the front page of the "Life & Arts" section, continued on a second page as a half-page article with three more photos; and more. These sources (and others) clearly provide the required secondary Significant Coverage in multiple reliable sources that are fully independent of the organization over an extended period of time - for years. The coverage addresses the subject in-depth and directly. I agree with StonyBrook that the article may need cleaning up and improvements, however that is not a valid rationale for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Girls High School

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

Apparent lack of notability, no good quality sources readily apparent in this article. This is just some small school. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:SIGCOV most of the sources arent even about this high school. --hroest 13:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Charlie (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Photonics Network

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:44, 14 May 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 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find anything to suggest it passes WP:GNG. The article in The Age confirms that it was involved in redesigning the Victorian physics curriculum, but only provides a passing mention. I wasn't able to find anything else of note. MCE89 (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Valley Hospital

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:N and there are limited WP:RS When doing my WP:BEFORE i only found WP:PRIMARY sources, signifying that this hospital does not deserve its own Wikipedia article. DankPedia (talk) 23:31, 14 May 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 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Medicine, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NHOSPITAL. Charlie (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was rename‎. Unsurprisingly given the issue, this is a complicated discussion, but I commend the majority of discussants who remained civil and constructive in their contributions. In discerning an outcome, discussants' claims to policy and guidelines present a conflicting outcome. It remains substantially unrefuted that NLIST is satisfied with the existence of reliable sourcing of the class, nevertheless, although somewhat refuted, there are major concerns that the list does not conform to NPOV. (In the case of claims to COATRACK, it is not unreasonable for this to be understood as an elaboration of elements of NOT and NPOV, and hence a reference to core policy). The conflict amongst discussants is whether sourcing unambiguously links the listed companies with "genocide" (however defined). The responses to claims of a lack of NPOV were stronger when demonstrating sourcing that connects to "war", but weaker when attempting to demonstrate a connection to "genocide". Therefore, I read the consensus as contradictory; NLIST is satisfied, but the effect of the article fails NPOV. However, consensus indicates that this failure is rooted in the title itself and a consensus developed as the discussion evolved that the article should be renamed as List of companies involved in the Gaza war. I will move the article and not leave a redirect. Whether genocide is discussed in the moved article is a content matter and not related to notability. Goldsztajn (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies involved in the Gaza genocide

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

This article is clearly a violation of WP:NEUTRAL. Regardless of the title of the Gaza genocide article, we don't need a list of companies that supply weapons that implies they support genocide in Wikipedia's voice. BilCat (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. BilCat (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Category:Companies involved in the Gaza genocide is connected with this article, but I don't know how to include it, or if it should be nominated separately. BilCat (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article does not claim that these companies support genocide in Gaza—it documents their involvement in it, as clearly stated in the introduction. It will include not only companies supplying weapons, but also those providing technology, funding, and other forms of support ( will be added later ).

A similar precedent exists with the List of companies involved in the Holocaust article.

Article is supported by reliable sources as linked in External links and is written from nutral point of view. Cinaroot (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust is a universally recognized series of atrocities and genocide that have been adjudicated before multiple courts of law. Please cite the legal court cases where these businesses have been convicted of complicity in any war crimes in Gaza. See also WP:REDFLAG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies involved in the Gaza genocide does not say companies are complicit, but rather involved. What you are arguing is irrelevant. I'll also note, Complicity (non legal context) does not require a legal conviction. Complicity in such context doesn’t always mean companies actively participated in genocide, but rather knowingly enabled or benefited from.

Wikipedia does not require legal conviction to document allegations or involvement when reported by reliable sources.

The article avoids stating these companies are guilty of war crimes; it documents their role as reported in reliable sources. This is aligned with how Wikipedia handles similar topics—including in articles like List of companies involved in the Holocaust, which you referenced.

If concerns remain about how certain companies are represented, those can be addressed through improving the sourcing and wording—not by deleting the entire article. Cinaroot (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide is a war crime. It is ipso facto criminal conduct under international law. Complicit vs involved in, is a distinction with no material difference here. You are accusing, in wiki voice, companies of involvement in criminal activity. That requires a level of sourcing which does not exist. As far as I am aware, no one has actually been convicted in any court of genocide with respect to Gaza. As such, it remains legally an open question if such is even taking place. How can we accuse entities of involvement in crimes, that have not been proven, and for which they have not even been indicted? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re conflating genocide with the crime of genocide. I’m not going to get into whether Israel has committed crime of genocide or not—that question is heavily debated by the community and the article Gaza genocide deals with the issue.

The article does not assert guilt; it presents involvement as reported, with careful language and attribution. Where language may overstep or be too close to “in-wiki accusation,” that can and should be adjusted through discussion and editing—not deletion. Cinaroot (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cinaroot indicates that "This article does not claim that these companies support genocide in Gaza—it documents their involvement in it" — This assertion is belied by THIS-> [67] edit summary by them, asserting Amazon's "complicity" in the ongoing Gaza atrocities. The intent of this page seems quite clearly to provide a handy blacklist for action against "complicit" entities, which is well outside of Wikipedia's purview, regardless of how politically desirable such direct action might be. Carrite (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello - i added that source because someone said 972 magazine is unreliable because its written by Palestinians Talk:List of companies involved in the Gaza genocide#The cite for Amazon The nation is reliable source as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - this is done to satisfy the critiques - not with intention to prove Amazon's complicity. Ultimately, what matters is the content of the Wikipedia article, not speculation about the motivations behind a citation. If you disagree with the material, please focus your critique on what’s actually written in the article — not assumptions about editorial intent. Cinaroot (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: see Cinaroot's comment and the title is also "List of companies involved in the Gaza genocide" and not "List of companies supporting the Gaza genocide" Laura240406 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Would support re-naming to "List of companies involved in the Gaza war" or some other variant if there are NPOV concerns. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list, but keep information and create a new prose article or merge into Gaza genocide or Israeli war crimes in the Gaza war. EvansHallBear (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will also point the nation article [68] also mentions genocide in gaza where they referenced the list by American Friends Service Committee. [69] Cinaroot (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that would defeat the purpose though as the list specifically refers to companies that are involved in actions that belong to the broader topic of the Gaza genocide. e.g. a company that produces aid packages would be involved in the war but not in the genocide (bad example but you get the point). Laura240406 (talk)

Fair point. "List of companies involved in Gaza war crimes" would've been a better suggestion. I don't see any problems with the current title personally, but was trying to say that a title change is preferable to a total deletion. EvansHallBear (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EvansHallBear those article are already above 15k word limit. It cannot be merged there. And this is a growing list. Cinaroot (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Leaving aside the questions of neutrality and phrasing, this is not a notable intersection for these companies. The fact This article does not claim that these companies support genocide in Gaza—it documents their involvement in it, means it's non-defining, and while that applies specifically to categories, the fact is that none of these companies are notable - it's a WP:COATRACK of sorts to shame the companies in question. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: COATTRACK doesn't apply here though as there are at least 2 sources (see the external links section) that tie all these companies together as profiteers and lists their involvement. Laura240406 (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Per our list notability rules, the company's involvement does not need to be a defining characteristic. Only the topic of companies being involved has to be notable. IMV it is, so I'm opposing deletion. (t · c) buidhe 02:16, 15 May 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 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing NLIST. Nominator stands correct that the title is bad, yet that part can be changed to something along the lines of companies that supply sides in the Gaza War, or that supply the IDF in the Gaza War. The absence of sources for this list as whole, however, is not a coincidence. The IDF has suppliers of military equipment and these companies really belong to IDF discussions. The supplies are not specific to the Gaza War. For Hamas, state actors are often indicated as suppliers and this is already discussed elsewhere. Supplies were largely or entirely cut off by the IDF. gidonb (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are sources though: here here here and here (taken from the external links section) Laura240406 (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources exemplify the weakness of the argument to keep. Only one of the sources provided is somewhat independent. And even then, The Nation identifies itself as a progressive publication. This means that it has a particular political perspective, and its content should be treated with appropriate caution and attributed to its perspective. In this case it decided to tie general supply information of the IDF to alleged crimes. That isn't NPOV, neither is our article. The other sources provide organizational opinions. One of the sources you provided is even a press release! Now I see that you BLUDGEONE under each other opinion that is different from yours, so maybe next round I will explain in even greater detail the importance of organic and responsible growth and of neutrality of our encyclopedia. gidonb (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are of course additional secondary sources in the list tying the use of specific weapons to Israeli war crimes in the Gaza war. These war crimes are well documented by human rights groups and experts. Although The Nation is biased it is considered a WP:RS. Per WP:POVDELETION, concerns about NPOV can be addressed over time and don't warrant deleting the entire article. Dismissing the opinions of multiple UN independent experts because they are in a press release seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Laura240406 has made 6 comments so far, all responding to different arguments in a WP:CIVIL fashion. It seems a bit premature to accuse her of WP:BLUDGEON. EvansHallBear (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note the press release says “international crimes, possibly including genocide” and not just “genocide”. Changing word “genocide” in title to “war crimes” would make these sources more usable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my reasoning is a little unusual but runs as follows; it's a serious allegation to make that a company should be added to this list and the risk of false-positives (meaning fake information or wrongly adding a similarly named company) would seem to be high. Unless a company itself was proud of its involvement and publicly stated as such, I don't see that there is sufficient historical inquiry to warrant a page. In my view and without assuming bad faith on anyone, this is currently not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. JMWt (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's not an allegation as all entries are based on reliable sources proving their involvement and the "false-positive" argument doesn't really hold because of WP:TRUTH. If the sources say so, we say so. Laura240406 (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, whilst the entries currently on the page are arguably well sourced, the debate is about the topic and the potential that it could be a problem.

There are issues of verifiability and edit-warring within these topics, which is why they are subject to special editing restrictions. Having this page is an open invitation for spreading disinformation in my opinion. JMWt (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's why I've nominated it for extended protection per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict Laura240406 (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By this standard, Wikipedia couldn't have any articles on contentious topics. There are policies is place for dealing with disinformation, so deleting the article entirely isn't warranted. I definitely agree that care needs to be taken to avoid tenuous links or turning this into a BDS list EvansHallBear (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is liable and needs to be deleted as Wikipedia can be sued for this kind of content. Govvy (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia only reproduces what the source say so they would have to sue the sources, not Wikipedia itself.

Also see e.g. here. Laura240406 (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter, wikipedia can still be liable for what it has. In fact, there is the ability to circumvent wikipedia and actually go directly to a user and sue that person for adding liable information to wikipedia. Either way, this kind of content isn't neutral and should be avoided. Govvy (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That invalidates your point though since the editors themselves would be liable and not Wikipedia as a whole. This is also not defamation since it's based on sources and doesn't alledge anything. The article doesn't include any speculations as to who is legally responsible or who vocally supports the genocide. It just lists suppliers of the weapons that are used for the genocide and related war crimes, which are statements that are easy to proof and verify.

e.g. the IAF carpet bombs Gaza using F35Is -> Lockheed Martin produces them specifically for the IAF -> Lockheed Martin produces the fighter jets used for carpet bombing

Every step of this example can be backed by sources and the logical conclusions can also be backed by sources so it's not original research. There is no room for interpretation or defamation here. Laura240406 (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not a legal expert, but my understanding is that laws like Section 230 (in the U.S.) protect platforms from liability for user-generated content. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, disputed material can be challenged and removed through established editorial processes. It’s not up to individual editors to assess legal liability — our role is to ensure content aligns with Wikipedia’s core policies: verifiability, neutral point of view (NPOV), and no original research.

Whether or not Wikipedia can be sued is a legal question beyond the scope of editorial decisions. What matters here is whether the material follows wiki policies. If it meets those standards, it belongs — even if it’s uncomfortable or controversial. Cinaroot (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed)
Keep: neutrality of the title aside, companies involved in Gaza genocide is something regularly covered in reliable sources, usually in the context of boycotts or geopolitical issues. And they are not only covered individually, they are often discussed as a group, even if it's just a small subset at a time. For example, articles discussing which companies supply weapons. --MarioGom (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate my point, here's a sample of some sources discussing companies involved in the Gaza war as a set. I have not included soures about individual cases, which are way more abundant, but just a sample of sources that support treating these companies as a set in a list article:
- Sax, Sarah (16 February 2024). "They're Supposed to Be Socially Conscious Investors. Why Are They Funding the War on Gaza?". The Nation.
  Discusses how ESG funds participate in companies involved in the Gaza War. Explicitly names Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems.
- Ackerman, Spender (9 July 2024). "These Corporations Are the True "Winners" of the War on Gaza". The Nation.
  Discusses companies benefiting from the war. Explicitly names Colt, Ford, Caterpillar, Palantir, Google,
- Pamuk, Humeyra; Stone, Mike (24 June 2024). "Exclusive: US has sent Israel thousands of 2,000-pound bombs since Oct. 7". Reuters.
  Discusses weapons exports as a group. Explicitly mentions Boeing Co, opens new tab and General Dynamics. Based on US officials declarations.
- Rodríguez, Olga (1 October 2024). "Quién vende y exporta las armas que Israel usa en sus masacres". eldiario.es (in Spanish).
  Discusses companies as a set, exporting weapons used for Israel to use in the Gaza War. Explicitly names Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon-RTX, Day & Zimmerman, General Dynamics, Oshkosh Corp., Leonardo, Rheinmetall and MTU Friedrichshafen. Reporting partly based on the Centre Delàs report [70].
--MarioGom (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly per Bushranger above. There are only 4 articles with the title "list of companies involved..." - two of them are about being involved in specific fields. The other is List of companies involved in the Holocaust. That article makes very clear that it is a defining characteristic of the companies involved directly supporting the Holocaust through things like utilizing forced labor, or directly engaging in censorship, or building new plants/factories to specifically support the actions of the regime in severe ways. Merely selling arms to a military who went on to be accused of war crimes is not a defining characteristic - otherwise, we would have an article listing companies involved in the construction or operation of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, for example.
In other words, the one other similar article has clear intentional links between the companies and the war crimes committed. On the other hand, this article is virtually entirely "guilt by association". There is zero evidence that any of the companies listed so far have done anything differently to "support" the actions of the military. In other words, it's an attempt at advocacy through a WP:COATRACK - saying "hey, look at this list of companies that are supplying the Israeli military". It is not a defining feature of these companies, and it is not an independently notable topic. It is likely that the information on who supplies the Israeli military (both now and historically) is due weight to include in an article about the Israeli military. But attempting to split this out like this is nothing more than a POV fork and should not be tolerated.
Lastly, even if people think the above issues aren't present, this is a clear example of why WP:NOPAGE exists. Other information provides needed context for this that is not possible to present in a table/list format, such as the history of the conflict, the actual way that the companies' supplies have been used, the use of other supplies not listed in the table, etc. Whereas, again, this page can only ever serve as "ooh look at this list of companies that you should dislike because they supply the Israeli military" - and actually does our readers a disservice by splitting this off from the context and information that would be presented if it were included in other relevant articles, following WP:DUE, of course. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think your first paragraph holds water. For example IBM were not, as far as I know, directly using slave labour during the Holocaust, they were supplying computer equipment. And they're on the list you mention.

Similarly I don't think your second holds much water; continuing the analogue you've introduced, a chemical company which knowingly supplied Nazi death camps in full knowledge of what the chemicals would be used for were not just "guilty by association"

The difference with the Holocaust and this article is that there has been extensive historical research and academic debate about the topic since the 1950s. In the current situation the killing isn't even over. JMWt (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support removing IBM from that list then as they were not directly and intentionally involved in the Holocaust. And you seem to be agreeing with my second point - a chemical company (such as BASF, listed in that article) that knowingly sold chemicals specifically to be used for mass murders, and even built a new factory at a concentration camp to be used specifically to supply it... well yeah, that's clearly more than "guilt by association". Merely supplying a military is "guilt by association" without more information and context. Hence why this page should not exist as a standalone list/article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of companies involved in the Holocaust has way more "guilt by association" than this article currently does:
- Allianz provided insurance
- AP cooperated with Nazi Germany and disseminated Nazi propaganda – all western news agencies have made this bargain with Israel
- Baccarat produced Vichy propaganda
- Chase bank assisted in the sale of Nazi war bonds – By this standard we can include Bank of America, Citi, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan as having underwritten Israeli bonds.
- Rumors that Coco Chanel (not the Chanel co) was a Nazi spy
- Deutsche bank made loans
- Henry Ford was a "virulent" antisemite
- Hoesch produced steel (if they used slave labor the one reference provided doesn't make that claim)
- The Merck family supported Hitler – quite a few U.S. CEOs publicly support Israel
...and on

All of the companies in this article continue to sell arms or otherwise do business with Israel after it was accused of war crimes. I think that qualifies as direct and specific support. Had any of these companies terminated their business relationship with Israel after it became clear they were committing war crimes, that should be specified.

You have convinced me that this information would be better served in article format instead of this list format. I would support deletion contingent on an article similar to Private sector participation in Nazi crimes being established in its place. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also support removing any other guilt by association in that article or any other similar articles I have yet to see. But to be blunt, I would only support removing any/all of those "guilt by association" from that table. Not necessarily removing them from Wikipedia as a whole - but "guilt by association" should not be handled in a short table entry, but in context - comparing them to other companies in the same field, for example - that can only be provided by prose in an article. So I think we agree there. What we disagree with is whether there's so much due information that it needs to be its own article. Ultimately, I doubt there is so much that is actually due weight that it can't just be covered in Gaza war, Israel Defense Forces, their sub articles, etc. Regardless, a split-out can be considered if the information becomes unduly in other articles that already exist. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 20:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list violates NPOV and is very selective in which companies are listed. As much as I personally wish companies would care more about people than profits, the unfortunate reality as the wikipedia is potentially liable for content it keeps up and listing companies that are only tangentially involved is a risk to the project as well in addition to the NPOV problems. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list is selective because all entries have to be properly sourced and should rely on verifiable facts, not just accusations or speculations. As for the NPOV part: give me reliable sources that contradict the claims made in the article and I'll add them. NPOV doesn't mean "taking no sides" or "not saying bad things", it means that there should be a balanced view based on the available RS. Laura240406 (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to a new article "Complicity in the Gaza genocide"~~ Keep or Move to a new article "Complicity in the Gaza genocide" (Position updated --JasonMacker (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)) - This article would be better formatted, per the reliable sources discussing the topic, as a descriptive article rather than a list. This would also make the title more neutral. I see such an article as helping to reduce the article size of Gaza genocide by moving the details provided in Gaza_genocide#Responsibility_of_third_states, but also having a broader scope to be inclusive of private companies and state-owned enterprises. That section of the Gaza genocide article would summarize facts presented in the new article.--JasonMacker (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be too miffed with this. But I would much prefer it to be added into other articles first - even if this ends up being deleted before a "new" article is created. For example, there's more than just Gaza genocide that this information would be better placed on, such as Israeli Defense Forces since the vast majority of these companies have been supplying them since well before this portion of the conflict. If all possible articles get too big then that can be handled by WP:SUBARTICLE, which specifically calls out not being hasty to create them. Too often when sub-articles are created outright like this rather than as a split from another article, they become magnets for WP:UNDUE - specifically being way too much depth of detail that isn't encyclopedic to include. And this can lead to its own NPOV problems - ultimately making it a POVFORK disguised as a subarticle. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i think complicity is a stronger statement that `involved` directly or indirectly. `involved` is more neutral. Cinaroot (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be okay with Alleged complicity in the Gaza genocide, depending on what WP:RS say. This list article is already functioning as describing the listed companies as complicit in the genocide. That's why, for now, it's not appropriate as a mere list, but rather a descriptive article that correctly attributes any alleged complicity to specific reliable sources that are making the allegations. In any case, I don't see how saying a company is "complicit" in genocide as opposed to being "involved" in genocide is really much of a distinction. How can a company be "involved" in genocide but not "complicit"? I would say that rather than being more neutral, using the word "involved" sounds euphemistic. JasonMacker (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Complicity is a significantly more inflammatory, and less neutral, term than "involved". ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of a private company that could be described as "involved" in the genocide but not "complicit"? JasonMacker (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categorically this applies to every Palestinian company whose property is damaged or whose employees are killed by Israel -- the company is "involved", by virtue of being a victim, but not "complicit" by virtue of lacking any intent. Complicity requires intent (as a matter of law in the U.S., and as a matter of common practice across the Western legal systems that Israel's criminal code is built upon). Regardless, it's not incumbent on me to give specific examples -- it's sufficient to point out that a proposed title categorically fails WP:NPOV and lacks precision. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've physically been in factories in a warzone who were making clothing for the military power which was attacking them. It's a long and winding story of sub-sub-sub contractors and desperation. I doubt that this is directly happening in this region, however it isn't so hard to see that there are different levels of involvement and complicity in a genocide. JMWt (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While your hypothetical example is conceivable, I was interested in a real example where reliable sources actually do make this distinction. Are there reliable sources that describe a company as involved in the Gaza genocide, but not complicit? JasonMacker (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't supposed to be a philosophical discussion on complicity vs involvement. My question is focused on trying to gauge what reliable sources are saying so that we can write a Wikipedia article accordingly. For example, the first source used in this list article is this war on want article. It directly uses the word complicity. But then, this source discusses "very minor or one-time involvement" in the Gaza genocide. Is that the goal? Is it to have a list of companies with any and all involvement, or should the article focus on sources that focus on complicity? That's a scope question, but either way, I think it would be better served as a descriptive article rather than a list article. JasonMacker (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it says the list also includes companies that have minor or one time involvement. Not all of them are minor. Some of them are significant. Cinaroot (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is largely where I'm at. My preference would be for private sector and state participation to be covered separately though. I think "Private sector involvement in Gaza war crimes" would work best as more sources use war crimes than genocide (per Bobfrombrockley (talk · contribs)'s argument above). EvansHallBear (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would take Govvy (talk · contribs)'s input with a grain of salt as they've claimed that +972 Magazine is unreliable because it is written by Palestinians here, then went on to deny the consensus at Gaza Genocide here and then did this again and personally attacked me here. Laura240406 (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While not sympathetic to their viewpoint, we should avoid WP:ADHOMINEM attacks. EvansHallBear (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern and I only brought this up since they personally attacked me, not for the points before alone. Laura240406 (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the keeping arguments and sources on this topic presented above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also support renaming it to "List of companies involved in the Gaza war" per Monk of Monk Hall below 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tendentious attempt to Right Great Wrongs. Unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is Not A Blacklisting Service. Carrite (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen this List of companies involved in the Holocaust ? any comments ? Cinaroot (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a comment: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POVFORK and per WP:N, article doesn’t have to claim these companies support the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. POVFORK of what article?
2. notability shouldn't be an issue since there are multiple RS talking about this topic.
3. what do you mean by your reference to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades?
Laura240406 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Clearly fails NPOV and appears to be a COATRACK with the object of righting great wrongs. I also concur with Anonrfjwhuikdzz's point above. The list appears to be more than slightly selective. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum I note that a number of other editors have been raising concerns about the possible legal implications of labeling companies as complicit in genocide and/or other war crimes absent a definitive legal determination. I think that is an extremely weighty point. WP:REDFLAG would seem to apply. We cannot have an article that explicitly accuses any person or entity of criminal conduct in wiki-voice absent a legal adjudication to that effect. On that basis I am adding a Strong to my above delete. See also the very good comments by AndyTheGrump directly below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOV. Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't been speedied as potentially libellous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify whats the NPOV issues are? Cinaroot (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues start with the first sentence: "This list includes corporations and their documented involvement in the Gaza genocide and other war crimes." As of now, there has been no court ruling that war crimes have been committed in Gaza. And there certainly has been no court ruling that these corporations were 'involved' in any such war crimes. What is actually documented is that the companies listed have been doing business with a regime that is widely regarded as engaging in such war crimes. The assertion that doing such business constitutes participation a criminal act is unsupported by sources, and clearly no more than opinion. A widely held opinion certainly. But still opinion, asserted as fact. Asserting as fact that corporations (even corporations we don't like, doing business with regimes we don't like) have committed criminal acts is at minimum a violation of WP:NPOV. And as I suggested above, possibly libellous. And frankly, I am at a loss as to what exactly this list is supposed to achieve anyway. As an exercise in partisanship, it is utterly transparent, and will convince nobody but the already convinced. If contributors to Wikipedia wish to engage in propaganda with regard to this topic area (and some clearly do, as has long been documented at ArbCom etc), they need to work on being a little more nuanced. This hit-list has all the subtlety of a charging bull elephant, and will do nothing to improve the credibility of broader Wikipedia coverage of the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so I don't have to reiterate it again. WP:NPOV doesn't really make sense here since it reads "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The article represents all significant views on the topic as published by reliable sources as there aren't really any sources denying the companies' involvement. Invoking WP:NPOV sounds more like WP:IDONTLIKE. Also see WP:POVDELETION as to why this wouldn't be a good reason to delete the article as a whole. Laura240406 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK that have been cited repeatedly by people opining for deletion. Even if it's all the information available about companies that are even tangentially involved - which it's certainly not (see WP:WIP - it's impossible) - it's still an attempt to move the content out to its own article/list. While often splitting information out into a separate or sub-article is appropriate, in this case the resulting article/list does not have the context and related information (such as companies that stopped selling to Israel/its military at the beginning of the war). That is one example of what's meant by without editorial bias in the NPOV policy. Trying to segregate information that is intended to be (or at least, will be) perceived negatively about an organization on its own page, without context, is purely an editorial decision - and it introduces bias. The only reason negative information should be split into another article is after careful consideration of WP:ARTICLESIZE concerns. Not to try and name and shame companies. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COATRACK doesn't apply here as there are sources that actively group multiple companies together (see WP:WINAC).

WP:POVFORK also doesn't apply here if I understand it correctly since this is a list of multiple separate entities that share a common trait according to the sources. Their involvement in the Gaza genocide can also be part of the companies' articles themselves but as with List of companies involved in the Holocaust, it is a list of companies that share that trait. Laura240406 (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the list may meet WP:NLIST. But per every link so far, meeting notability is never enough to guarantee a separate article. You've ignored WP:NOPAGE which states that factors to consider are Does other information provide needed context and Do related topics provide needed context. Both of those are true in this case. Without the context provided by the parent topics (such as Gaza war, Israeli Defense Forces, etc) this article is merely an attempt to name and shame companies. In other words, a POV fork. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is WP:COATRACK is an official wiki policy ? its an essay and not vetted by community. All those citing this and other policies that are not official should not be considered. Cinaroot (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Essays explain policy. Some essays, such as COATRACK, have become widely accepted as reasonable explanations of policies to the point that citing them is argument enough. Arguing that "it's just an essay" is not a valid argument to contradict the citing of COATRACK or other essays that are widely accepted. If you have no valid arguments to contradict them, then your !vote and arguments will likely be (properly) reduced in "value" (or "discounted") by whoever closes this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the list meets WP:NLIST because of the large amount of WP:SIGCOV about this topic. I also agree with Laura240406's above comment about WP:NPOV and WP:POVDELETION. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 22:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete emotional activism. Super Ψ Dro 23:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mostly pr Cinaroot's comments, Huldra (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non neutral and libelous garbage. Jevansen (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject entirely meets WP:SIGCOV. There are more names that we are yet to add there. The article is going to see further expansion. Orientls (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable subject. The talk page of the article tells there are more names that are yet to be added. Not to forget we already have List of companies involved in the Holocaust. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Holocaust is a universally recognized series of atrocities and genocide that have been adjudicated before multiple courts of law. Please cite the legal court cases where these businesses have been convicted of complicity in any war crimes in Gaza. See also WP:REDFLAG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's a list and we keep all lists, especially if they are about politics or current affairs. Someone will be along shortly to post some newspaper articles that mention some companies involved in trade with Israel, and that will clinch it. Once we have the sources no one can possibly argue against deletion, because this is Wikipedia and is not censored and we do right great wrongs as long as they are the right wrongs to right.You are too flippant - Mr Brock, form teacher. Sorry, I mean Delete for reasons that ought to be obvious, but probably are not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Monk of Monk Hall~~Draftify The concerns of the OP are spot-on. That said, the article is potentially redeemable with a new title and front matter.~~ Chetsford (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC); edited 05:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to edit or propose changes? Cinaroot (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List of companies involved in the Holocaust is for companies with documented collaboration in the implementation of the Holocaust, Forced labour and other German war crimes (emphasis mine). Meanwhile, the Gaza list seems to be mostly composed of arms manufacturers and other companies that continue to do business with the Israeli government despite the genocide allegations. These WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments do not work because selling weapons to a government and collaborating with a government to implement a genocide are two very different things. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list includes not only includes weapons provision, but also technological support and financial backing. ( more to be added) Under international law, providing arms to a state committing genocide is illegal. The Genocide Convention obligates states to prevent and punish genocide, not merely refrain from participation. This article is not making a determination on whether Israel is committing genocide, but documenting corporate involvement in the context of what has been referred to as the “Gaza genocide” by numerous reliable sources.

The companies listed in the Gaza-related article are not merely neutral suppliers — many have been explicitly warned by UN experts that continued arms transfers to Israel could amount to violations of international law and risk state and corporate complicity in potential genocide. This is materially similar to how certain companies during the Holocaust were implicated — not necessarily as originators of policy, but as enablers and facilitators of atrocity through economic and logistical support.

Executives of several companies have acknowledged their involvement and some CEO outspoken pro-Israel views Lockheed Martin executives has highlighted the conflicts in Israel and Ukraine as potential opportunities for future revenue growth. CEO of NextVision, an Israeli startup said "wars are good for business". This guardian article talks about how wall street is hoping for an explosion in profit from violence in Israel and Gaza.

The comparison to companies involved in the Holocaust is valid, not because the situations are identical, but because the principle of complicity in atrocity crimes applies in both. The argument that “selling weapons is different from implementing genocide” draws a false dichotomy. The distinction between “selling weapons” and “collaborating to implement genocide” is not as absolute as you suggest. Under international law, particularly the Genocide Convention, complicity in genocide does not require direct participation in planning or executing genocidal acts. Knowingly facilitating genocide through material support—such as arms, technology, or financial services—can constitute complicity. Again this article - does not make a case for complicity or if company knowingly participates in Gaza genocide but rather documents its involvement.

Companies also risk tacit complicity in the Israeli government’s violations even just by carrying out their business activities in the country and contributing to the wider economy.

[71] Obligations of Third States and Corporations to Prevent and Punish Genocide in Gaza Cinaroot (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to companies involved in the Holocaust is valid, not because the situations are identical, but because the principle of complicity in atrocity crimes applies in both. No, it is not "valid" by any stretch of the imagination. The Holocaust list can only exist because the companies were convicted by a court of law of complicity in Nazi crimes against humanity. If we were to include any companies with documented collaboration but no conviction (not sure any exist, but it's just an analogy), then we would be breaking both WP:RGW and WP:LIBEL. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to accuse people or companies of complicity in crimes against humanity. We can cover allegations and accusations of complicity or involvement all we want, but we cannot make such accusations in wikivoice, and we especially cannot have an article titled "List of companies involved in [a genocide]" unless and until they are convicted in a court of law. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in the statement The Holocaust list can only exist because the companies were convicted by a court of law of complicity in Nazi crimes against humanity. Is there a way for readers to validate this statement? Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It mostly has to do with WP:LIBEL. As I stated above, we cannot accuse people or companies of involvement in crimes against humanity in wikivoice without a conviction. An article titled "List of companies involved in [a genocide]" should not include any companies accused of, but not convicted of involvement in the corresponding genocide. A separate article, such as "Allegations of corporate involvement in [a genocide]", could be created for those companies.

I would like to clarify that I am not against an article like the latter existing for this topic, but I oppose simply renaming this article. Having these companies listed as "involved" even in the publicly viewable page history is likely still a violation of policy. - ZLEA _T\^C 06:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the statement "should not include any companies accused of, but not convicted of involvement in the corresponding genocide" but only because the genocide label is a distraction. There would be more utility in a title like "List of profit-making organizations that help Israel carry out acts of mass violence that kill and injure tens of thousands of civilians", but it is a bit wordy and unlikely to find consensus. But my question is about whether readers (and editors) can confirm whether the statement The Holocaust list can only exist because the companies were convicted by a court of law of complicity in Nazi crimes against humanity. is true or false, without having to do a lot of research themselves. It is a claim. Is it true? If it is not true, the argument doesn't work. For example, ExxonMobil have been convicted by a court of law for all sorts of things, but is involvement in the Holocaust one of them? Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust list does not claim or even imply that ExxonMobil itself was involved in the Holocaust. It says the Deutsch-Amerikanische Petroleum Gesellschaft, which is now a subsidiary of ExxonMobil, was. That said, a quick Google search did not turn up any evidence of a conviction of the company or any executives, and I don't see any mentions of such a conviction in the company's article. It's probably worth looking into, but that's something that needs to be discussed on that article's talk page, not here. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, perhaps it was a bit of a hyperbole to say "the Holocaust list can only exist because the companies were convicted by a court of law of complicity in Nazi crimes against humanity." The Holocaust was 80 years ago and I assume all of the executives that would have had anything to do with the Holocaust are long dead, so WP:BLPCRIME would not apply to companies accused of being involved in it. Still, the same cannot be said for the companies listed in this article, so my point still stands. - ZLEA _T\^C 09:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not making a determination on whether Israel is committing genocide, but documenting corporate involvement in the context of what has been referred to as the “Gaza genocide” by numerous reliable sources. If numerous reliable sources refer to an event as a "genocide", the last thing we should do is create an article accusing people and/or companies of involvement in said event in wikivoice. Genocide is one of, if not the worst crimes against humanity imaginable, and accusations of even involvement in such crimes should not be made lightly. Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor are any news sources, so we are totally unqualified determine guilt of any crimes and should not even imply guilt until after a conviction. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of companies involved in the Gaza war, Private sector participation in the Gaza war or something similar. I think this topic is clearly independently notable as evidenced by the existing sourcing and significant global public engagement with private sector involvement in the war. However, I think it is best to define the scope of participation as being a war that everyone agrees is happening, rather than a genocide that is unfortunately hotly contested, especially among companies accused of facilitating it. I think this modified article scope will broaden and deepen the sourcing available for the article and avoid the appearance of an unacceptably biased or advocacy-driven list. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with these title's. Cinaroot (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Monk of Monk Hall. Companies involved in the Gaza war certainly do meet WP:NLIST, and is pretty neutral when most of the companies mentioned work in the defense sector – taking the step to say they are involved in the Gaza genocide makes the list much harder to define, without really changing the intended scope. Also, while not deletion-related, a lot of the commentary in the list is about Israel's other activities in the West Bank and Lebanon, and the whole list is in need of cleanup. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what would people think about renaming this to a more broad title, which would include pre-exsisting allegations connected to the BDS movement and earlier boycott movements?:
- Allegations of corporate complicity in Israeli crimes against humanity
- Allegations of corporate complicity in Israeli international crimes
- Allegations of corporate complicity in violations of international law by Israel and shifting from a list-type article to a prose-focused article (maybe with a summary table/list). I think this could have the benefit of including the debates on both the violations themselves and complicity in them & being more NPOV compliant by focusing more on the history of allegations than the actions which are automatically framed as complicity. Plus, for thoose concerned with notability, I think the allegations concerning all of Israel's actions past and present are more likely to as a whole reach notability. Mason7512 (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me, those would still all be better started as portions of the articles affected and then split out if they become too large. The problem with starting it as its own article is that, because there are no immediate WP:ARTICLESIZE concerns, they can tend to violate DUE on large scales. I still firmly doubt there is enough information about this subtopic to justify it being covered outside of the context of other articles (such as Gaza War, Israeli Defense Forces, etc). But even if there is, that should be shown by putting the information in one (or more) of those articles and considering WP:DUE in those articles. Then a split can be considered for size reasons and per WP:SS.
Note that I consider this a special case - the proposed new article is (and will likely continue to be) significantly less watched than the other potential articles are - and thus it will be much easier for people to violate NPOV/DUE in it than if the information was added to the other pages. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of companies involved in the Gaza war. A highly notable topic and new title is good. Koshuri ^(グ) 08:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "List of companies involved in the Gaza War" (or war). It's a neutral title, the subject is notable, and the sourcing is fairly good. Smallchief (talk)
Keep The criteria for a notable list has been met in that these companies are talked about as a set in reliable sources. AugusteBlanqui (talk)
Delete per nom and many editors' arguments here, particularly ZLEA, who really nailed it. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my reply to their response. Ty Cinaroot (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to 'List of companies involved in the Gaza war' seems like the best solution for now. The genocide label is distracting. If it were the best label, the 'Gaza war' article would be called 'Gaza genocide', and maybe it will be in the future. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom — DonBeroni (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the actual f*ck. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator‎. I withdraw the AfD, largely due to the Softonic review that I missed. I haven't seen much evidence put forth that Softonic is unreliable. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brain Wolf

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

I can only find 2 reviews in reliable sources, Adventure Gamers and Gamezebo. With a lack of reliable reviews, it appears to fail WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 14 May 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 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Additional sources:
- 1. Review by de:Adventure-Treff (unclear reliability), See deletion discussion of Adventure-Treff at German Wikipedia. The article was decided to be kept because Adventure-Treff was cited in several academic books. Also Adventure Gamers has re-printed their articles: [72], [73], and GameStar has reposted their news: [74]. I think this review pushes the notability slightly above keep, unless someone can argue that they are clearly an unreliable source.
- 2. Article by Lien MULTIMÉDIA (requires subscription) (unclear reliability & independence), written by a journalist who has also written for Voir and fr:Clin d'œil (magazine). Since it's not fully readable, I can't determine if the article is mostly an interview or is there enough SIGCOV.
- 3. Review by Softonic (unclear reliability), Inconclusive discussion at WP:VG/S.
- 4. News article by La Presse, below significant coverage, not enough critical analysis. --Mika1h (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mika1h. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough coverage in RS, with some of the reviews going into considerable depth to keep the article. --hroest 15:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael P.J. Gerstein

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

Non-notable American entrepreneur. At best WP:TOOSOON. Can't find RSs to meet WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, simply. Given that it is a BLP the standards for sourcing are much more strict than the article currently observes, also. Coeusin (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources from Deadline are reliable, but only mentions. Other sources I found weren't RS or mentions. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarks, Indiana

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

Another spot back=added to the topos via GNIS from the state highway maps, it settles on an isolated farmstead, but that may be coincidence. Topos show a Monon line running north by this spot, so it could be a rail spot, or perhaps a 4th class post office. But a town it is definitely not. Mangoe (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Powerlifting Alliance

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

The article is almost entirely based on primary sources. A search for third party sources reveals just 1 google news hit. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing any independent WP:SIGCOV in various searches. --Here2rewrite (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seyberts, Indiana

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

Baker identifies it as a post office, though topos show it was probably also a rail station, as it sits adjacent to a long-abandoned rail grade which is almost completely vanished but which is quite plain in the oldest aerials. There's no town here and mo sign there ever was. Mangoe (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a town, just a post office named for the proprietor. Reywas92^Talk 13:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 03:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qabila FC

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

Still fails WP:NSPORT, even though a source ([75]) has recently been added. GTrang (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed the redlinks, addded sources, cleaned up up some of the citeneeded content. Al Ittihad is, BTW, a national daily. ~~It's still very, very borderline and possibly WP:TOOSOON but~~ I believe this new club now ~~squeaks~~ glides in past WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty around to help notability, [76] that third source in the article is good from TalkSport, and the signing of Papiss Cisse [77], [78]. There are many sources that can be used. The article will only grow over time. The club will either sink or swim. There are lots of sources out there that can be used. Govvy (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Due to the small number of professional clubs in the UAE, I believe that all of them have adequate coverage. Svartner (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources/arguments above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems notable enough to justify inclusion. I would feel better if it had more sources but I feel like it just barely meets WP:GNG. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. UtherSRG (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kilimanjaro shrew

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

Not a notable species of animal. When doing my WP:BEFORE the only sources I could find are websites that take summaries of Wikipedia articles. DankPedia (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Kenya, and Tanzania. DankPedia (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this was a mistake DankPedia (talk) 23:44, 14 May 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 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All eukaryote species are notable per WP:NSPECIES. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 03:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Tunguliyadi

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

While this footballer plays in the premier league and seems likely to be notable in the future, I've been unable to find sources to establish notability now; the page cites a database entry and a social media post, and nothing better turns up on my search. — Moriwen (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. — Moriwen (talk) 23:52, 14 May 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 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – The coverage in Russian sources looks enough to WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. 0 league games is a big problem, and there is also a problem with reliability of the sources. Geschichte (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with draftfying this one too. Svartner (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Greece and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia · View on Wikipedia