Back

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 18

< May 17 May 19 >

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 redirect‎ to Libya at the 1996 Summer Olympics#Athletics. Is it time for a WP:RS discussion on Olympedia so we don't have to keep having the same conversation in multiple AfDs? asilvering (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moustafa Abdel Naser

[edit]
Moustafa Abdel Naser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. All provided sources are just databases/results listings and insufficient for meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. He was disqualified in the sole Olympic event he competed in. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE, I tried search some likely alternative renderings of this guy's name (Abd El Nasser, Abdelnasser) but couldn't find anything for them either. I think the Arabic name given in the article is likely something generated from the romanised name. There's the possibility that the name on Olympedia (as seen on other articles) was just wrong. The version in the newsletter used as a source for this article is "Abdelnacer".
And is it likely that this guy received significant coverage? Ghaddafi-era news coverage in Libya was strictly censored and rather given to focussing on the "great leader", and unlikely to focus on someone who DNF'd their only Olympic race. FOARP (talk) 14:44, 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) 01:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Prenkaj

[edit]
Adrian Prenkaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor diplomat now working as a functionary at the UN. Almost all hits are articles written by the subject, or where he is briefly quoted giving his opinion. I did find one profile of him in local media, but that doesn't amount to passing WP:SIGCOV in general.

His previous job titles are not automatically notable, and it isn't reasonable to suggest (as the opening section does) that he was a member of the Kosovo cabinet by virtue of being a political adviser. Overall, comes across as an inadequate promo page. Leonstojka (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

José María Alvarado

[edit]
José María Alvarado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage of individual, only cited source is a link to a defunct local history blog that links to a book written by a local newspaper reporter that provides no sources itself. Scuba 22:51, 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 keep‎. Would the nominator please become familiar with WP:GEOLAND if you are considering an AFD for a location. Significant coverage is not required. I don't think admin action is called for here but the nominator is urged to become acquainted with subject-specific notability standards and realize that not every subject is evaluated by the same criteria. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heikant, Vught

[edit]
Heikant, Vught (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Did a WP:BEFORE search and couldn't come across anything relevant to the subject. Didn't find any significant coverage whatsoever in the article. Editz2341231 (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search proves that this large and official hamlet was included in every relevant geographical dictionary. Per NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. It's big and bold so editors will not miss it. They still do. Per NPLACE: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. The population of Heikant, Vught wasn't even particularly low. Especially not for a hamlet. This nomination has no base in our P&G. gidonb (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find the population online. Can you provide some sources that are significant and independent to the subject? Editz2341231 (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1851: 440 residents. Mentions the Jewish cemetery at least since 13701872: 130 residents18981900: 395 residents1943 etc. etc. etc. Obviously no book misses a "hamlet" (really a former village) this size. gidonb (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't confirm the reliability of these books as they aren't in English. But I'll take a look at each of the links that you've sent. Editz2341231 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editz, you chose to nominate a notable location in a country where another language is spoken. No one else. The only good answer here would have have been immediate withdrawal and apologies for wasting the community's resources with a ridiculous nomination and constant arguing. It's not your first either. All your nominations have been of notable subjects. Maybe an admin can look into this? gidonb (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no WP:SIGCOV in any of the refs you put here. Editz2341231 (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a requirement. You continue to argue. gidonb (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm not arguing in any way, shape, or form here. Significant coverage is required in articles. Editz2341231 (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NPLACE (WP:GEOLAND): Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. No SIGCOV required. For some other features it is a requirement. gidonb (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those books only have a brief mention of the name, not significance, independent coverage. Possibly be WP:NEXIST since there is no significant coverage here. I mean an article, or a page of the book that describes this hamlet briefly. Editz2341231 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you only repeat yourself, I will refer you to my previous answers. The article should be kept by WP:GEOLAND. No whataboutisms will change that. gidonb (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there might be an argument to be made to merge or delete this if there are nuances with Dutch statistical measurements, but the sources presented seem very clear this was a populated place. SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 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 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! 23:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Windom, Indiana

[edit]
Windom, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It proved impossble, in searching, to get out of the shadow of the former secretary of the treasury, and of a particular agricultural report, but the lack of anything substantial at the location in any topo or aerial indicates that this is one of the those relatively short-lived pre-RFD post offices and not a town. Mangoe (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPLACE. Only briefly a post office at most. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:48, 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. After a thorough readthrough, I do not see consensus emerging after an initial listing, deletion review, and a subsequent relisting that has been open nearly a month. Currently, there are a large number of sources whose independence are disputed by the participants in the discussion. We don't seem to be making much headway, so I think it is time for this discussion to come to a close. Malinaccier (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessential (company)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Quintessential (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 22 closed with no consensus and I decided it was appropriate to relist. Procedural nomination, no opinion from me. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Delete in previous discussion). While TNT was appropriate for the prior version, the new version is acceptable and has national coverage in Australia. 🄻🄰 13:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My opinion that the company passes WP:NCORP hasn't changed since the previous AfD. And thanks to Commander Keane for their work on cleaning up the article. Linking the sources I presented in the previous AfD again for reference: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. And as Commander Keane notes, there are even more good sources from The Australian, the Australian Financial Review and others on Proquest. MCE89 (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Commander Keane says: Look at sources and make a judgement. I have just restored the version I worked on, with four sources. I did, and see three sources, not four. When I look at the sources, doing what a reader of the encyclopedia who wants to verify the content will do, I run into the Australian Financial Review paywall. I didn't try to follow the instructions that Keane says are seamless, because a reader won't be able to follow those instructions. In particular view of the history of conflict of interest editing, good-faith proponents should have some respect for the concerns of the editors who first objected to a spammy article and now object to an article with one old but significant source and two old invisible sources.
Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary Satisfies GNG
1 Australian Financial Review Paywalled report of purchase of a building Yes Probably Yes Probably No. Fails verifiability.
2 www.smh.com.au Discussion of recent activity by company Yes Yes, just barely Yes Yes Yes
3 Australian Financial Review Paywalled Yes Probably Yes Probably No. Fails verifiability.

If the proponents can't find any non-paywalled sources, then respect for the core policy of verifiability should be to move this into draft space until the proponents can pass the Heymann test by finding viewable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon As I am sure you are aware, there is absolutely no requirement that sources be non-paywalled in order to satisfy WP:V. In fact, WP:V explicitly says Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. I am more than happy to send you PDFs of any of the sources currently used in the article or any of the other sources I linked above (which I will add to the article as well) if you wish to verify them for yourself. But insisting that all readers should be able to access sources has absolutely no basis in policy. If that was the case, sources like the New York Times and the majority of academic journal articles could not be used for establishing notability either, since many readers will encounter a paywall. But policy is clear that sources should not be rejected just because some readers may not be able to access them. MCE89 (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did say I planned to review the sources in more detail if it ever got relisted, so I suppose I better get on with it before this expires. Starting with the best and clearest examples selected by MCE from the previous AFD:
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Lindsay, Nicole (14 March 2018). "Quintessential's opportunity fund ready to roll". The Sydney Morning Herald. (also in current article)
 – I would say between 40 to 80 percent of the article is quotes from the company, but I am willing to tentatively accept it on ORGIND Yes – The bigger issue is that the non-quote content is heavily WP:ORGTRIV – and I am not fully convinced that it demonstrates the author's own analysis or evaluation —
Lenaghan, Nick (11 January 2021). "Quintessential wins big on Visy deal". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2476776820)
 – Yes – Fairly similar to the above, maybe slightly better in terms of detail. If these are the best sources available, I would be inclined to exclude – —
Schlesinger, Larry (1 July 2024). "Quintessential's $250m Brisbane office deal confirms valuation slump". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 3074029294) (also currently ref 3)
 Yes I am inclined to assess this one as fully meeting ORGIND Yes No but it falls further from addressing the company itself directly or in-detail – realistically, there is analysis here, and good analysis, but more about the (CBD office) real estate market than any of the companies
Lenaghan, Nick (22 September 2014). "Quintessential time to sell-five asset portfolio". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1748982798)
 – Yes No Less detailed than the other Lenaghan article, or the SMH. Not much to say. –
Thomson, James (8 March 2024). "Meet the bravest investor in office property". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest has 3 different versions, 3063607564 is one)
 No The way I see it, this is one of your usual CEO puff pieces Yes No Yes
Tauriello, Giuseppe (26 February 2025). "Port Adelaide Distribution Centre expected to fetch $220m". The Australian.
 – Yes – I would disagree this has meaningful independent analysis, but it's not significantly worse than the SMH. I would place it between that and the 2014 Lenaghan. – —
Wilmot, Ben (3 July 2024). "Quintessential agrees to pay $250m for Brisbane CBD tower". The Australian. (ProQuest 3074848171)
 Yes Yes – Actually relatively good on the other criteria, but it's not clear to me we can say much about the company with the content therein Yes —
and I think I'll finish off my first round of reviews with ref 1 currently in the article, since the other two were already listed:
Schlesinger, Larry (4 March 2015). "Quintessential Equity pays $32m for 360 Capital's Canberra building". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1747550524)
 – Yes No Less detailed, less analysis. I would rate it below the 2014 Lenaghan. No
For my second round or reviews, we'll start with the one Commander Keane noted as promising, which I believe would be:
Brown, Greg (22 August 2013). "Shane Quinn won't yield on incentives". The Australian. (ProQuest 1426541389)
 No Virtually entirely "he says" from the co-founder which would typically be considered to fail the second half of WP:ORGIND Yes – –
Lenaghan, Nick (24 March 2021). "Quintessential Equity arrives in North Ryde". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2504294758)
 No Look, the main issue with these "We bought this, this is why this is a good deal for us" (other than the fact that they're mostly quotes) Yes No is, of course they're going to make vague waves about how they're a good company doing good deals. No investment manager is going to go up to a news company and say "here's how we do a bad job with our clients' money". – There's analysis here, but almost all of it is "invest in us, here is what we say our strategy is, it's very good", and it's from the company.
Lenaghan, Nick (17 March 2021). "Quintessential wins jewel in Adelaide's high-tech precinct". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2501830229)
 – I think I would put this at around the Tauriello article. Yes – The last and 5th from last paragraphs are mostly what I'd look at. Though, I wonder if looking at all the (marginal) Lenaghan articles as a single source could be an option. – —
Lenaghan, Nick (18 June 2014). "Quintessential considers Canberra buys essential". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1749585511)
 No Yes No I would say this is less useful than the (other) 2014 and North Ryde articles by Lenaghan, and would not have useful content even if combined. –
"Quintessential wins $120m WorkSafe building in Geelong". Australian Financial Review. 16 February 2016. (ProQuest 1765335569)
 – Yes No I don't think the middle bit is useful SIGCOV for this company, and the rest is ORGTRIV stuff. –
Johanson, Simon (16 February 2016). "Quintessential wins bid for Geelong's WorkSafe office". The Sydney Morning Herald.
 – Yes – Honestly I think this one might be the best one yet, either that or the Visy article by Lenaghan – —
Johanson, Simon (10 November 2015). "Cashed-up investors prompt funds managers to sell". The Sydney Morning Herald.
 – Yes No I would say this is something like the Schlesinger article, where there is not enough directly about the company, out of the independent secondary content. –
Tauriello, Giuseppe (7 November 2023). "Quintessential secures third tenant for upgraded Telstra building". The Australian. (ProQuest 2887105309)
 – Yes – Slightly worse than the other Tauriello article, and I don't think combining the two would help much even if we wanted to do that. – —
Wilmot, Ben (23 September 2014). "Quintessential in $90m sell-off". The Australian. (ProQuest 1563927930)
 No I was about to mark it as fully passing ORGIND until I realised Bishop was the person handling the sale (it did say that in the article, just missed it initially) Yes No This is really the heart of ORGTRIV, where the only information in there is useful about that one specific transaction. –
Overall, I'm not really convinced the sources meet NCORP at this point, but I will be adding the other 8 of 15 to my assessment table later, before looking for, e.g., that 2013 The Australian article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, that took a bit more out of me than I expected (hence the long break as well), so I don't think I'll be looking for any more sources yet. But, overall, I don't think the available sources quite clear what we want to for WP:NCORP, though there are a few I might be convinced are valid, like the Visy article by Lenaghan or WorkSafe by Johanson. I'd be happier if the three best sources more clearly featured direct and in-depth information (better than either of those two) about the company that also meets the second half of ORGIND though, so at the moment I'm still leaning towards a delete, or back to draft. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete based on the source analysis above and the fact that the article is basically devoid of useful information, except that company bought property X and sold it for Y dollars. --hroest 15:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We are finely balanced on the keep/delete axis and I would rather not close as another no-consensus given the recent history. I would particularly like to hear from User:Commander Keane, User:लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक, and User:MCE89, if they are willing, as to their views on the source analysis User:Alpha3031 has been kind enough to perform and whether they maintain their keep !votes in its light.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reviewed both source analysis and I agree with @MCE89's assessment below finding that those sources are sufficient for notability. I think the article should be kept as long as we don't go back to the COI/promotional version. 🄻🄰 11:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.
    • Article I mentioned above (@User:Alpha3031): "'Quinn won't yield on incentives' Brown, Greg.  The Australian; Canberra, A.C.T.. 22 Aug 2013: 33" [17] (hopefully that TWL link works) was the article I was talking about. It is not groundbreaking, just better or equal to the others.
    • Source searching: There may be more, who knows. It must be exhausting to review all sources presented, it may be easier to browse through the better ones and evaluate them. The CEO puff piece (#5 in the table above) was a newspaper's blog/website according ProQuest, the evaluation was inevitable.
    • Passing comment: I said in the DRV that notability guides are about guessing if an article meets content policies, but I can see it is also something of a "I don't like it" stamp. That's fine, it is just frustrating to me that if this gets deleted I will be the only one with access to the information. Particularly the paywalled stuff. Newspapers showed some interest beyond casual buy/sell mentions. There is good stuff across various sources and we can put together an article, but we don't want to.
    • Ponderance: This is the silly "other stuff exists" argument but I saw Michael Tritter (a minor character on a TV show) on the Main page. We like the source coverage there apparently. We are the encyclopedia of 2000s American TV shows but not of 2000s Australian businesses.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think ORGIND and NORG in general has been tightening in response to spam over the years, and there is an argument that we could have gone too far, but at the moment the balance is a considerably stricter standard than other topic areas which probably deletes some articles which are probably not too spammy but still probably lets a lot of spam through. Hard balance to strike. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The tables above focus on certain attributes of a source but omit two vital elements for NCORP criteria which are easy to overlook if the focus is on GNG only - in-depth and "independent content" about the company. Rules out stuff like regurgitated announcements and advertorials, a good source will have in-depth independent analysis/commentary/etc. None of the sourcing meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 17:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies to Alpha3031, I didn't spot your coverage of the 2013 article in the middle of your table. It is nearly all co-founder quotes.
    I think HighKing's point may be summed up by the final part of WP:ORGIND: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation.... I accept that from what I have seen, no journalist has sat down and done this properly (as reflected in the table above). There is public interest in the company (hence the sustained coverage), there is enough to create a useful article (I personally found interesting coverage going beyond triviality) but perhaps the overarching concern is that a neutral article cannot be written without thorough journalistic opinion, analysis and investigation? I can empathise with the fear of being overrun with articles and this is a reasonable argument.
    The strength of Wikipedia can be in bringing sources together to cover a topic, but the golden nugget exposé source for this company may not exist. It is hard for me to accept the deletion of knowledge that has value. Commander Keane (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the source analysis by Alpha3031 is extremely reasonable. I am still of the opinion that enough of the sources meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND to satisfy NCORP, but I think reasonable minds may differ on precise interpretations of those guidelines for some of these sources. I've summarised my reasoning for three of the sources that we agree are among the most promising, plus this new one I found, in the table below.
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Wilmot, Ben (19 April 2023). "Brookfield wins interest in $300m Brisbane tower". The Australian.
 Yes This one is clearly independent, as all of the parties involved declined to comment given that their negotiations were ongoing at the time Yes Yes Tells us that Quintessential is considered a savvy buyer with a focus on quality assets, that it is looking for an exposure to the city which is expected to benefit from the 2032 Olympics, and that the boutique property house has been linked to a series of office deals amid a change in the investment cycle. It also distinguishes this potential deal from Quintessential's past purchase strategy, saying that its most recent purchase in Adelaide was a refurbishment and repositioning play while this Brisbane building is in the luxury market Yes Provides secondary analysis of what the potential deal says about the market and about Quintessential's strategy
Schlesinger, Larry (1 July 2024). "Quintessential's $250m Brisbane office deal confirms valuation slump". Australian Financial Review.
 Yes Yes Yes I disagree that this one falls short of addressing Quintessential itself directly. It says that Quintessential is one of the few investor groups buying up CBD office towers, and that its thesis for doing so is based around securing them at or near the bottom of the market and in better performing markets such as Brisbane where vacancy rates are lower and A-Grade rents are still rising amid a flight to quality. It also says that it is able to do so because of its loyal investor base and that part of its motivation for its purchases is to improve its ESG credentials. Yes Strikes me as providing meaningful secondary analysis regarding the author's thesis for why Quintessential is one of the few investors buying CBD office towers
Johanson, Simon (16 February 2016). "Quintessential wins bid for Geelong's WorkSafe office". The Sydney Morning Herald.
 Yes Contains one brief quote, but I don't see any reason to doubt its independence Yes Yes Explains what is distinct about Quintessential's strategy - that it has stamped a presence in the office space by buying, regenerating and re-leasing older buildings in Canberra and NSW to government and other tenants - and provides an overview of its historical purchases and development pipeline. Yes This appears to be original, secondary analysis of the company's historical buying strategy and a brief overview of its pipeline
Lenaghan, Nick (11 January 2021). "Quintessential wins big on Visy deal". Australian Financial Review.
 Yes Slightly more quote-heavy, but not enough to meaningfully undermine its independence in my view Yes Yes Places this particular lease in the context of the longer-term view the fund manager and syndicator is taking on the prospect of disruption in the industrial market, giving some analysis of what this disruption might look like, and explains that Quintessential’s strategy is to acquire and regenerate value-add and core-plus commercial office and industrial properties in CBD and city fringe markets. Yes This also strikes me as original, secondary analysis by the article's author, explaining how this particular deal connects to other purchases that Quintessential has made and that it "vindicates" Quintessential's original purchase of the asset.
MCE89 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi MCE89, all of those sources are based on company announcements. Sometimes it is obvious, such as when the article directly attributes the information as having originated from the company ("announced", "confirmed", etc). Also next time, might be worthwhile checking to see if the "story" is covered by another publication and carries the same information - if so, you'd have to agree that for something to contain "independent content" (as per ORGIND) then the article has to have something kinda unique. So this source isn't "independent" because, on the same day, this entirely "different" article has the exact same information. Similarly, this article mirrors the Sydney Morning Herald article. HighKing++ 15:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s just not true at all. The fact that two publications report on the same event doesn’t make them non-independent sources. If you read the sources that you claim “mirror” one another, you will see that they are distinct articles reporting on the same event. A newsworthy event like a major property acquisition is obviously often going to be reported on by multiple publications. And the fact that an article contains things like “the company confirmed” or “the company announced” does not make that source non-independent, as long as the source also contains independent analysis of the company’s announcement. For instance, think of all the stories that begin with “the Trump administration announced (some new policy)” and then provide analysis of that policy announcement - the fact that they are “based on” an announcement by the administration obviously doesn’t make them non-independent souces. And what about the first two sources in the above table, which are clearly not just regurgitating company announcements? MCE89 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once you remove the duplication that appears in both articles and the content which originated from company sources (which appears to include all the "facts and figures", a "feature" of all Quintessential announcements), what precisely is left? If you're pushing that what is left is an "independent analysis" you're going to need to point out which paragraphs (or even sentences in paragraphs?) in which sources, in your opinion, contain in-depth independent content about the company? I don't see any independent "analysis" of the announcement. As for the first source, did you even read it? Point out where I can find any in-depth independent content *about the company* - not rumour and gossip about a potential upcoming business deal or details about other property. The second article is about a property slump in Brisbane, using the topic company's announcement of price paid vs what was previously floated as a potential price to underpin the assertions, half of the article isn't even about the topic company. Here's an article published on the same day with the same facts and numbers about the deal. In my experience, when you get articles published on the same day covering the same event, they're rarely going to meet NCORP because they regurgitate the same information provided to them by the company. HighKing++ 09:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...you're going to need to point out which paragraphs (or even sentences in paragraphs?) in which sources, in your opinion, contain in-depth independent content about the company. Did you not see the table you're replying to where I did exactly that? I pointed out the paragraphs and sentences that, in my view, provide significant independent analysis. For instance, the first source explains that Quintessential's previous deal in Adelaide was to refurbish a building, but it's been linked to a series of deals involving more upmarket office buildings amid a change in the investment cycle, and that this deal in particular would give it greater exposure to the Brisbane market ahead of the 2032 Olympics. I don't see how that could possibly fall into the category of "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" or "brief or passing mentions". MCE89 (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're probably at an impasse. You want to say that the first article is good - its mostly about rumours and gossip and most of the article talks about the Brisbane commercial property market in general. ORGTRIV also includes as examples, routine coverage of capital transactions. Most of the article deals with the Bris Nor does the article fit any of the descriptions of WP:SUBSTANTIAL, nor can you say it meets CORPDEPTH's definition: "[D]eep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization". At most, you could say that there are a total of 6 sentences in that article which are about the company - that simply isn't sufficent to meet "deep or significant" requirement. HighKing++ 18:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey DCsansei, there's been a lot of discussion ranging over many weeks involving the references listed by MCE89. I've pointed out why those sources fail GNG/NCORP. Your !vote is very vague and potentially meaningless since it doesn't attempt to engage in any discussion. Can you perhaps try to identify which sources meet NCORP/ORGIND by reference to particular paragraphs? HighKing++ 17:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per other sources found above. The company has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, and reliable sources. This includes AFR, The Urban Developer, and Business News Australia. The awards from RICS and others further support its recognition within the industry. Editz2341231 (talk) 13:06, 26 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 redirect, with the consent of the article creator, because this nomination was obviously made by mistake, or for the purpose of WP:HARASSMENT. If you want to redirect a page, and nobody objects, you just go ahead and perform a WP:BLAR. You don't start a full AfD. AfD is articles for deletion, not articles for redirection. James500 (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005

[edit]
Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough to have its own page separate to Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. I can't find secondary sources relating to this legislation.

Better to just provide a redirect to Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. Landpin (talk) 20:51, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Moldovan Under-18 Division

[edit]
2014–15 Moldovan Under-18 Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Children's football in Moldova. How is this notable? (Note that I will not bundle the other seasons at this point.) Geschichte (talk) 20:26, 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 merge‎ to Loring Air Force Base#Base culture and civilian life. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Limelite

[edit]
Limelite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 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. Goldsztajn (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borobudur Vesak Lantern Festival

[edit]
Borobudur Vesak Lantern Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely LLM generated, WP:BLOWITUP would probably be the best course of action as I don't see any salvageable content. Laura240406 (talk) 18:21, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024/25 Romford FC Season

[edit]
2024/25 Romford FC Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seasons for a low-tier team are not notable. Challenged PROD Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to promote the club, because Romfords fan base isn't very big and we are trying to get more fans TylerBrown21 (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or publicity. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:56, 25 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ 4meter4 (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway Jones

[edit]
Broadway Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG. Played only three games as a relief pitcher in July 1923 so he is unlikely to have sources with sufficient coverage to pass WP:NSPORT. A BEFORE search yielded lots of sources about the film and a popular play of the same name that ran on Broadway in 1912-1913. I couldn't find a thing on the baseball player other than sports databases which don't count towards WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I've seen a few articles on MLB players who only appeared in a game or two get deleted so I don't accept that claim as true. Kudos on locating sources, but the claims of notability all seem very inflated for a man who played in only three MLB games in less than a two week period in July 1923. We have an obituary largely sourced to an interview with the subject's wife which to my mind is not independent as an interview, and then we have one piece covering his debut game and another his decision to leave baseball due to the illness of his father soon after. Both of these pieces were published in Wilmington's The News Journal and are essentially local boy makes good type of coverage which I would't consider significant. Fundamentally, what makes a short lived relief pitcher whose entire career includes collectively only eight innings of play over a week and a half time period encyclopedic enough to have his own biographical article? This very nominal contribution to professional sports would be better covered in the 1923 Philadelphia Phillies season; although it is so nominal it probably would be WP:UNDUE there making a biographical entry seem even more inappropriate.4meter4 (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good deal of other coverage in the state papers, e.g. 1 2 3 4 5, and its tough to look for coverage since his names (Broadway and Jesse / Jones) are very common. The only MLB players deleted were from the 1800s. Playing in the MLB, even if only three games, is still a significant accomplishment and its silly to say SIGCOV on MLB players is not SIGCOV "because they didn't play that much". BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources above easily satisfy GNG. Wizardman 18:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nomination makes no sense. Playing 3 games in the Major Leagues in the 1900 means that a subject is extremely likely to have sufficient sources, as BeanieFan says. Even almost every 19th century National League player whose first name is known has had sufficient sources (I can think of one exception in my decade plus of watching baseball AfDs closely, and based on the research I did that player was likely erroneously listed as a Major Leaguer in one database). And, of course, BeanieFan found sufficient sources to meet GNG. And I am curious which 20th century Major Leaguer who played 3 (or more) games has had an article deleted. Because I am pretty sure I'd be able to find adequate sources to restore the article. Rlendog (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ebot (microcontroller)

[edit]
Ebot (microcontroller) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. Seems to be just another (of very many) 'duino clones. No significant distinguishing features. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 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 23:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Mahdi

[edit]
Ashraf Mahdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage to justify a standalone article. The subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The young politician has never stood in an election. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The subject easily passed WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. I want to mention some significant coverage by national and international media: Deutsche Welle, Manab Zamin, Bangla Tribune, The Daily Star.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The sources of in the article (such as Manab Zamin, Amnesty International, DW, The Daily Star BD) are all event based reports (such as arrest, disappearance, or participation in political rallies). The reports by DW and The Daily Star BD highlight his disappearance or political activitiest and do not establish him as a nationally or internationally notable figure. The incident of disappearance and the statement from Amnesty International do not establish Mahdi as a human rights activist or a notable person, rather he is mentioned as an example of the then government's human rights violations. The article describes his political activities, such as involvement with the National Citizens' Committee or the National Citizen Party and might have been presented in an exaggerated manner. Although his activities may be related to Hefazat-e-Islam or Islami Oikya Jote, he is not a notable leader of these organizations, and his contributions are not significant enough to be mentioned in articles about these organizations. This does not fulfill Wikipedia's two criteria (depth of information and neutrality). Policies like WP:ONEEVENT says that a single event (such as disappearance) or local political participation is not enough to establish notability.
So what I want to say is that the article should be deleted, and some parts (if not already) should be merged into other articles (such as Hefazat-e-Islam or the human rights situation in Bangladesh) if suitable for merging. Somajyoti ✉ 16:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not fall under WP:ONEEVENT, as the event was part of his broader activism. There are sufficient reliable sources available to support a balanced and independent article, both before and after the event.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:07, 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 23:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four Elements (series)

[edit]
Four Elements (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obviously incomplete article that was disruptively moved out of mainspacedraftspace (after am AfC decline) by the creator. Draftification is an option, but was consumed so we cannot draftify again. I am not opposed to any draftification of the article. As for the notability, Google searches for the Thai title brought up sources, but it is unclear since most of the sources are rather brief so an analysis would be helpful. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://th.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Google&lang=en&q=%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A0%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2_%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B9%E0%B8%95 

perhaps someone more familiar in Thai popculture/drama can help check. Villkomoses (talk) 12:42, 25 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article and no support for Deletion. Interested editors are encouraged to spend time improving the article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dada KD

[edit]
Dada KD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC. He has literally no coverage outside of his death, with nothing about his music career save for the usual streaming sites. Non-notable discography and award from 21 years ago. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 14:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
I oppose the deletion of this article. The claim that Dada KD “fails WP:NMUSIC” and has “literally no coverage outside of his death” is inaccurate and overlooks notable independent coverage of his contributions to Ghanaian highlife music. Dada KD has maintained a multi-decade career in the Ghanaian music industry, a recognized genre with cultural significance in West Africa.
Notability and Coverage
Dada KD has been covered in multiple reliable, independent sources, not limited to his death. Examples include:
These sources show coverage extending well before his death and demonstrate his notability within Ghana’s entertainment and cultural space.
While streaming platforms alone do not establish notability, they offer evidence of widespread public availability and sustained musical output:
He has produced several full albums over the years, with a continuing fan base and consistent releases.
He received a Best Male Vocal Artist award at the 2004 Ghana Music Awards UK, which, although dated, still counts as national-level recognition. This aligns with WP:NMUSIC criteria point 6 — "Has won or been nominated for a major national or international music award."
Moreover, Dada KD’s music is widely cited in discussions about Ghanaian culture and social commentary, especially relating to traditional highlife music and societal issues in Ghana.
Dada KD is a notable figure in Ghanaian music history and deserves a spot in Wikipedia as part of documenting the evolution of highlife music and African popular culture. His career has had meaningful cultural impact beyond just his death and beyond mere discography listings.
Recommendation: Keep the article. NanaYawBotar (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Music streaming sites are not viable sources; any random schmo can have their music on a streaming platform. The other sources above are all local and either border on promotional in tone (interviews) or have nothing to do with his music. The award doesn't even have its own article for how seemingly high-echelon it is. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 03:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you say the sources are all local what do you mean? The article is about a Ghanaian musician so which source will you term non-local? Owula kpakpo (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All external information sources are viable sources, providing they are correctly set up and operated, like the majority of streaming sites. You may think we are confusing them with reliable sources, which they obviously are not. But editors in deletion discussions such as this one are quite entitled to consult any source which mentions or promotes the subject of the article being threatened with deletion, in order to form an opinion of their own. Please don't stifle discussion with such inserts. Ref (chew)(do) 21:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject is a well known Ghanaian Highlife musician with an award winning career. He passes the basic notability test for WP:NMUSIC. Owula kpakpo (talk) 18:37, 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 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Siliguri Mahakuma Parishad election

[edit]
2027 Siliguri Mahakuma Parishad election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod with the comment "2022 is in the past" despite the article being about the 2027 election. Article is just a copy/paste of the 2022 election with "TBD" placed in tables where results will eventually go. Summary is about 2022 which may be the reason for the comment in the contested prod. Have not found significant coverage of future 2027 election. Most hits only bring up info about 2022 or wiki-derived sources. Fails to meet WP:GNG Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 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 14:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Delta Air Lines stowaway case

[edit]
2024 Delta Air Lines stowaway case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and just isn't really notable. Stowaway incidents happen nearly daily. Fadedreality556 (talk) 13:35, 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 redirect‎ to Garry Nolan. Well, there sure are a lot of words in this AfD. Not many of them have been useful for establishing whether there is a consensus that the subject of this article meets our notability guidelines or not. My overall read of what people are saying (which, often enough, is not the same thing as the !votes they've stated) is that the Sol Foundation is kinda-sorta-possibly notable. The situation is nowhere close to the certainty of the "strong keep" !voters, but neither is it as dire as it appears from the source table. (Yes, I took the advice to read the SF Standard article. I agree, that is not an "event listing".) Normally, I would take that as "insufficient support for deletion" and close as "no consensus" - but this is a Foundation. The guideline we're actually trying to meet here is the stricter WP:NCORP. Even the keep !votes do not suggest to me that it meets this standard.

With insufficient support for deletion, but insufficient evidence for a keep, I've taken the suggested WP:ATD of a redirect to Garry Nolan. Given the close connection between the two and no compelling reason not to redirect, deletion would be inappropriate. Editors are welcome to merge some (some!) of the text from the article history over to Nolan's article. If the Foundation receives more significant coverage in reliable sources in the future, as many participants believe it will, this can be spun back out. asilvering (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sol Foundation

[edit]
The Sol Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
More than a year ago, Melcous correctly added our template for excessive reliance on non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources to this article on a UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan.

In any case ,the underlying issue has gone unresolved. I conducted a truncated WP:BEFORE consisting exclusively of a Google News search (because, given the subject, it's obviously not going to appear in any journal or book).

This search found pages upon pages of references to this outfit which might incline the casual observer to presume it passes WP:N. However, on close inspection, most of these are to The Debrief, which is unambiguously non-RS. Its editor-in-chief is Micah Hanks (who also reports on Sasquatch, [18] wrote the foreword to a "non-fiction" book on monsters that purportedly live in South Carolina [19], wrote a book about something called "ghost rockets" [20], and used to host a podcast about ghosts and ESP) The other contributors of this site come from a similar pedigree.

Additional sources are WP:ROUTINE (e.g. an event listing at the San Francisco Standard [21]) or are purely incidental mentions, such as organization officers being quoted by title in stories.

Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Strong Keep I have edited my keep and refactored the prior discussion below. The article has substantially changed since this was nominated. This was the Reference section when The Sol Foundation was sent nominated to delete:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288083567#References
I have now added sources including the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Hartford Courant, Catholic News Service, Aleteia, Rice University, Newsweek, Daily Express, PopMatters, Society of Catholic Scientists, la Repubblica, Focus (German magazine), Niconico, La Razón (Madrid), Sunday World, Futurism, the International Social Science Journal, and more, and still have more yet to go through when I have time. This is the References section now after 39 edits by me:
* Archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733#References
* Live: The Sol Foundation#References
Here is all current sources sorted against WP:SIGCOV: Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV
That is coverage from seven (7) nations: the United States, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, and Japan. I think this is now a trivial keep and the AfD should be withdrawn. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Newsweek is considered generally unreliable per WP:NEWSWEEK. The Daily Express is considered generally unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS. "Popmatters.com" - a small pop culture, citizen journalism website [22] that publishes listicles like "the best albums of 1999" - is doubtfully RS for coverage of xenobiology, quantum physics, and astronautical engineering per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The La Razon article mentions the Sol Foundation once (in a title quote attribution to its founder) and is not WP:SIGCOV.
I've gone through the rest of the sources in this latest batch and they all are insufficient in similar ways, however, due to the sheer volume of sources I am truncating the written portion of my analysis for purposes of readability. (I previously evaluated a different shotgun spread of sources by the above editor in a comment I made [23] said editor has taken it upon himself to collapse.) Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Readers: Please pay attention to this.
Your La Razon remark is completely made up of whole cloth and your imagination. Why would you do that? Did you think no one read the content? The La Razon article says, "Inspirados en proyectos científicos y divulgativos, como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nollan con la Fundación SOL, o en Francia UAP Check, los miembros de UAP Digital y UAP Spain prevén la próxima creación de un Panel de expertos multidisciplinar que impulse el debate y el estudio científico sobre los Fenómenos Anómalos No Identificados en territorio europeo." That translates to, "Inspired by scientific and educational projects, such as the one launched by Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation, or by UAP Check in France, the members of UAP Digital and UAP Spain plan to create a multidisciplinary panel of experts to promote debate and scientific study on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena in Europe." Which is the citation for, "La Razón credited the Sol Foundation with having inspired similar research ventures in Spain."
How is that a "a title quote attribution to its founder"? La Razón explicitly credits the SOL Foundation itself, not just Garry Nolan or its title, as an inspiration for UAP Digital and UAP Spain’s planned expert panel. The sentence structure in Spanish--"como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nolan con la Fundación SOL"--clearly attributes the project’s inspiration to both Nolan and the SOL Foundation as entities, not merely using the Foundation’s name as a descriptor. There is no valid counterargument because the conjunction "con" ("with") grammatically links Nolan’s action to the SOL Foundation as an active collaborator or source of the project, making it impossible to interpret the Foundation as a passive or incidental mention.
The nominator has substantially misdiscribed everything. Did you notice how many of the sources are notable enough to have deeply complex Wikipedia articles themselves? The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics is a bad source for the topic of a foundation studying UFOs? Some of the sources are thorough and entire pieces on the SOL Foundation. Some are brief but relevant mentions, and all of them were picked because they were relevant and contributed to Wikipedia:Notability. Look at my user page. I don't mess around with sourcing; this was something I did rapid fire because we simply needed to demonstrate notability, not build a complex 80k+ article... yet.
Remain Very Strong Keep. Parse all of nominator's remarks carefully for accuracy at this time. I don't know what is going on. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to engage in a debate as to whether the six word phrase "Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation" constitutes WP:SIGCOV. But I acknowledge and appreciate your obvious passion for this subject. Chetsford (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Everyone knows that not every article source needs to be WP:SIGCOV. The point today is I have demonstrated breadth and scope of Wikipedia:Notability, with articles from global scales, from long to short pieces, to some that are significant and some that are minor. That's still notable. You can't minimize major international publications. You have not demonstrated in any way that The Sol Foundation lacks notability. There are still more sources, and more content (multiple citations for some) to pull out of the sourcing I've already added. There is no such thing as an AfD qualification or requirement that the article has to be in any sort of advanced state of development. Please be honest with our peers and fair. Very Strong Keep. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I have demonstrated breadth and scope of" We'll have to agree to disagree. As noted by my previous comments, your sources include WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, a citizen journalism pop culture website, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers, something called "exopolitik.com", [24] etc., etc. Chetsford (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What version of the site are you even looking at? Hartford Courant, Focus, Sunday World, the Catholic ones, AIAA, and so on? I challenge you, here and now, to show me exactly where Substack is used as a source, or else withdraw the AfD and recuse yourself from this article going forward, in perpeuity, with no option to undo that, and it will be enforced by other Admins? Do you agree?
Here, the current version right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733
Show me exactly where the text string "substack" shows up anywhere in that article. Do you agree to my terms? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it showed up "in that article." You said your comments on this Talk page "demonstrated breadth and scope". Those comments include "Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort ... substack.com/home/post/p-142904928" [25].
"Do you agree?" No thanks! Chetsford (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is what you are compelled to judge against:
I have been exceptionally clear that I am arguing against the live, production sources. You arguing against what I previously linked here and did not use in the article is irrelevant. All that matters is what is in the live article now, and what is in the article now trivially meets Wikipedia:Notability and particularly, it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Not, again, what I linked and withdrew on the AfD. What is now live. This article passes AfD now trivially. If you are unwilling to address all the sources, you are not arguing per policy, and 'good faith' becomes questionable, as you are then arguing against non-acceptable criteria which is not policy. We are all slaves here to outcomes. That includes the nominator. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated my remarks with newly found evidence.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Strong Keep -- Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort:
EDIT 1: Upgrading to strong keep. I'm already integrating these. The PopMatters article (link) is literally an entire piece devoted to the Foundation and their Symposium just by itself.
EDIT 2: I'm still finding more sources. Google Sol Foundation without quotes, add various flags like +Nolan, +UAP, +research, +UFO, +military, and so on--there's plenty. I again stand by this being an easy keep. I'm already adding sources to the live article, and there's plenty more I can add in the next few days. Have at it, all. It is unclear how OP missed all these. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT 3, again reaffirm my Strong Keep; I've added yet more sources, and here is the current references section: The Sol Foundation#References. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.popmatters.com/sol-foundation-symposium-ufos-uap
https://oxfordre.com/literature/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1348
https://mitechnews.com/guest-columns/sol-foundation-releases-17-videos-from-ufo-conference/
https://substack.com/home/post/p-142904928
https://www.courant.com/2023/11/22/how-a-stanford-professor-aims-to-organize-the-hunt-for-alien-life/
https://www.firstprinciples.org/article/serious-physicists-are-talking-about-ufos-what-changed
https://exopolitik.org/hochrangige-insider-beraten-ueber-die-zukunft-der-ufo-offenlegung/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/issj.12484
https://nowcreations.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/10-Reasons-to-Consider-the-Possibility-of-_Beyond-human-Intelligence-No-11-Sept-2024.pdf

I see more mentions yet on Google News and Google Scholar that are required to be considered. Premature nomination. Just because an article is a stub that no one has had the time or energy or will to build from available data doesn't mean it's not notable or should be deleted based on not being "done".

I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it? Certainly not. The one article I linked on the talk page alone has enough outbound links to quash any AfD there. I have found a raft of material there with a minimum energy of effort--it took me less than 5 minutes to find what I linked here for Sol Foundations. See next Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station that at first glance was hard to source, but I dug into enough data that now it's fine. This is an endemic problem on Wikipedia it appears? Just because the one user cannot or will not find data doens't mean a topic isn't notable. [[26]] is how I found Invention Secrecy Act, and now when I get the will and time to go back to it, I'm not even a third of the way into the sourcing I have saved. A more "done" article will have 70-80+ sources, not just 24. The same thing happened with how I found this article and how it's references look today. This article here was a particular pain to source and had one (1) source when I found it; click to see the current version. Just because an article takes work and is a stub still doesn't mean it's not notable.

It's also obvious "not just The Debrief" as sourcing, which is not a disallowed source in any event under any rational or widely accepted rules nor precedent or RfD or discussions anywhere. Keep for The Sol Foundation. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Oxford reference doesn't mention this at all, "exopolitik.com" is clearly not RS, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers is not RS, a PDF on the website of a guy in Ohio named Vince who works on "raising the consciousness of the planet as part of the Universal Life Force" [sic] is not RS, etc., etc., etc.
    "I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it?" Based on the sources you attached to your Keep !vote here, I'm very tempted to look at it. Chetsford (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ASPERSIONS are out of place at AfD. Thank you. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Remain Keep. Hartford Courant, Poptech, Mitechnews, First Principles, the social science journal, what's already in the article and I stopped on sources after a few pages. A topic doesn't require sourcing to be WP:GNG that means it can grow beyond a stub. A stub-level topic can be perfectly notable, and no rule says or ever will say otherwise. Keep. Also, you need to change your needlessly aggressive tone and stance, along with the routine WP:Civility boundary-pushing threats you have been applying to your recent spree of UAP-related AfDs after the Harald Malmgren AfD debacle you initiated that led to Jimmy Wales getting involved due to your actions. From an Administrator, it is grossly inappropriate. You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity. Ego has neither role nor allowance here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Keep: Chetsford's consistent use of biased terms reveals a strange anti-knowledge bias. Further, Chetsford's characterization of Nolan running a "UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan" dismisses the fact that SOL is an accredited 501-c3 which has garnered several million dollars in funding, ran 2 symposia, been the focus of dozens of news articles (as noted by others), etc. is further indication that Chetsford is running a non-scientific and biased agenda not based on Wiki rules but on his personal belief system. Professor Nolan is a world-renowned immunologist, founder of several successful companies, has dozens of US patents to his name, etc. so the purposeful use of derogatory language is reason alone for ignoring his arguments. Frankly, at this point given his past actions against Malmgren it is a surprise he does not lose his editor status and be banned. TruthBeGood (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, both per the nominator's openening argument and their subsequent rebuttal of the supposed 'sourcing' presented. We require independent, third party sources and unfortunately none of any quality have been offered. I note that so far, both 'keep' !votes not only fail to present policy-based arguments for maintaining the article, but are littered with aspersions and near-personal attacks (e,g the nom's so-called "bias", "threats" and alleged immaturity)—while themselves demanding civility! To quote, these have "neither role nor allowance here". Neither, of course, does WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, aka WP:JIMBOSAID. (Also, from a purely formating point of view, could we only bold our !votes once, please.) I have hatted the aspersons, etc., above; if they are repeated I will seek administrative involvement. The ubnderstanable passons that AfD can sometimes generate is no excuse for assuming bad faith. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, have you had the opportunity to review the rewritten article?
    It's almost completely redone since the AfD and youre !vote. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re-stating my delete !vote for the record. If it's required, as it seems to be á la mode, call it a Very Strong Delete. The article has been expanded in byteage, but the sources are of no better quality, unfourtunately, so WP:HEY doesn't apply (as an example of WP:HEY in an AfD, see for example at Becky Sharp, for Nations of 1984 or in Concordat of Worms, et al.). As has been established by the nom's thorough analysis of the new sources, few of them are both independent or indepth. None support the claims made to WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG, while support !votes themselves seem to rely on non-policy based arguments (e.g. BUTITEXISTS, an argument to avoid, using WP:OR to analyse sources' claims, and suggesting that all opinions given equal weight). And that's ignoring the continued questioning of other editors' motives. The keep !votes are, perhaps unsurprisingly, greater in number; they are, equally unsurprisingly however, weaker in policy. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated aspersions from now-indefinitely blocked editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Per rules please point out exactly the aspersion cast. Don't claim you want sources while not providing any specifics. Chetsford and others have already been chastised for their behavior. Pointing this out is not an aspersion, just a fact. Now-- to policy...
    Arguing policy: Under WP:GNG an article is retained when independent, reliable secondary sources provide significant coverage—coverage that is neither trivial nor purely routine. The Sol Foundation article meets that threshold: a feature story in the Hartford Courant profiles the group’s formation and scientific aims, offering far more depth than a press notice; Newsweek devotes several paragraphs to the Foundation’s inaugural symposium and quotes its mission statement in the context of national UAP-policy debates; the Daily Express, Sunday World, and Germany’s Focus supply further analysis of its policy recommendations. Because these outlets have no editorial connection to the Foundation, each instance satisfies WP:RS and demonstrates the independence required by WP:V. Taken together, the sources show sustained, serious reportage—not fleeting mentions—so the article clears GNG without difficulty.
    WP:ORG presumes notability when multiple reliable publications discuss an organization in detail, and the Foundation easily qualifies. A culture-journalism treatment in PopMatters chronicles its November 2024 symposium and describes the think-tank’s research agenda; a peer-reviewed paper in Wiley’s International Social Science Journal cites the Foundation’s role in advancing UAP scholarship, establishing academic relevance; trade coverage in Aerospace America and mainstream religious press such as Catholic News Service document its participation in government-civic forums. That range—from metropolitan newspaper to peer-reviewed journal—confirms breadth of interest across sectors and disciplines, negating any claim that the topic relies on press releases or fringe blogs. Because Wikipedia evaluates notability by what independent authors have written, not by the subject’s fame, the clustering of these independent, substantive sources fulfills both the letter and the spirit of WP:ORG; deletion would therefore contradict core inclusion policy.
    Under WP:NPOV the encyclopedia must represent all significant, verifiable perspectives without editorial prejudice. The existing Sol Foundation article does exactly that: it reports the group’s origins, research aims, and public activities strictly as described in independent secondary sources, while attributing any evaluative language—positive or skeptical—to those sources. There is no advocacy or promotional tone; where reliable outlets raise doubts the article can and should include them in proportion, preserving balance. By contrast, deletion proposals that dismiss the foundation as a mere “UFO club” or label its founder an “enthusiast” introduce pejorative framing not supported by the cited coverage and thus clash with NPOV’s prohibition on subjective language.
    Removing a well-sourced article because some editors question the topic’s legitimacy would itself create a neutrality problem: it would excise documented information from mainstream newspapers, journals, and trade magazines, leaving Wikipedia’s treatment of UAP research incomplete and skewed by omission. NPOV requires that content be judged on the reliability and independence of its sources, not on individual editors’ attitudes toward unconventional subjects. Keeping the article therefore upholds neutrality by presenting verifiable facts for readers to evaluate, whereas deletion would substitute editorial bias for documented evidence—contradicting both NPOV and the broader principle that Wikipedia “does not censor topics that are reliably sourced, even if controversial or fringe.”
    Opponents claim the article “fails GNG” because its citations are routine or incidental, yet the record shows multiple feature-length, independent pieces—Hartford Courant profile, PopMatters symposium report, Newsweek analysis, Wiley journal article—that exceed the “significant coverage” threshold in WP:GNG and satisfy WP:ORG’s requirement for reliable, third-party sourcing. Those who invoked WP:BEFORE overlooked or dismissed these sources; the assertion that such material “obviously won’t appear in any journal or book” is disproven by the peer-reviewed ISSJ paper. In short, the corpus is more than adequate, and routine mentions are supplementary, not foundational. Labeling Hartford Courant, Newsweek, or Wiley as “none of any quality” misstates WP:RS; these outlets are plainly reliable under policy, and their presence confirms notability.
    Other objections collapse on closer inspection. The article does not “lean on” The Debrief; even if that site were excluded entirely, mainstream and academic coverage remains plentiful. Claims of promotionalism ignore that the text is fully attributed, neutral in tone, and free of puffery, whereas the deletion rationale itself applies pejorative language (“UFO club,” “enthusiast”) that violates WP:NPOV. Finally, WP:ILIKE/IDONTLIKE dictates that editorial sentiment is irrelevant; Wikipedia retains topics documented in reliable, independent sources regardless of their perceived seriousness or controversy. Because those sources exist in abundance and the article can be readily refined to reflect them, deletion would contradict core inclusion policy rather than enforce it.
    Applying the consistency principle embedded in WP:N, Wikipedia should judge the Sol Foundation by the same sourcing threshold that has long sustained analogous entries. Earlier UAP bodies such as NICAP and CUFOS were retained once magazines like Time and major newspapers profiled them; the Sol Foundation already matches or exceeds that level of coverage, with features in Newsweek, Hartford Courant, PopMatters, and a peer-reviewed Wiley journal. Comparable new ventures—Harvard’s 2021 Galileo Project, assorted think tanks, and niche NGOs—have been kept on the strength of a handful of reliable articles in mainstream or specialist press; the Foundation’s two well-reported symposia, plus national and international reportage, clearly meet that same bar. To impose a higher standard merely because the topic involves UAPs would contradict WP:ORG’s call for uniform treatment across subject areas.
    Wikipedia also favors improvement over excision. During the AfD one editor added additional mainstream and academic citations, after which the article unambiguously satisfied WP:GNG; policy dictates that once independent coverage is shown, remaining disputes—e.g., over one Debrief citation—are resolved by normal editing, not deletion. Finally, WP:V reminds us that inclusion rests on what reliable sources publish, irrespective of whether the work is speculative or controversial. The encyclopedia already hosts entries on paranormal institutes, alternative-medicine centers, and To The Stars Academy precisely because significant independent coverage exists. The Sol Foundation now enjoys a comparable evidentiary record; deleting it would depart from established precedent and apply an inconsistent, topic-specific gate that policy expressly rejects.
    Strong keep. The Sol Foundation unambiguously meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG: mainstream and academic outlets—Hartford Courant, Newsweek, PopMatters, Wiley’s International Social Science Journal, among others—provide non-trivial, independent, and reliable coverage. All statements in the article are verifiable (WP:V) from these high-quality sources (WP:RS), and the text is written in an even-handed, fact-based style that satisfies WP:NPOV.
    Objections centered on alleged source weakness or routine mention collapse once the full reference set is examined; a handful of marginal citations cannot override the weight of substantial reporting. Policy favors improvement over deletion, and the article has already been fortified with additional reliable citations during the AfD. Removing it would excise well-sourced information and create a gap in Wikipedia’s treatment of contemporary UAP research, contrary to the project’s mandate to document notable topics neutrally and comprehensively. TruthBeGood (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The few sentences I have read of the walls of text above haven't given me much motivation to read more, but evaluating this one on the merits: First, we have 2 unambiguous RS mentions: a brief mention in the Oxford reference ("In 2023, Garry Nolan established the Sol Foundation, a research center dedicated to the interdisciplinary study of UAP."), and an article from Focus discussing the org in depth. Second, we have lots of incidental mentions in RS, which are not themselves sufficient to establish notability but do support it. Third, although sources like The Debrief shouldn't be considered reliable for making claims about UAP, they are being used here to establish the existence and nature of a UAP-related organization, which could be acceptable. This, combined with the fact that several people are continuing to actively seek out and add new sources to the article, paints a picture of a low quality article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems, so I'm landing on keep and improve with this one. -- LWG talk 22:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Closer Re Offsite Discussion of this AfD. Extensive and impassioned offsite discussion of this AfD is occurring on Reddit's r/aliens and r/ufos (e.g. [27], etc.) and on X (e.g. [28], [29], etc.). Chetsford (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, as with other topics in this area there seems to have been a certain amount of WP:REFBOMBING going on in this article (with things like PR press releases being cited for some reason). I'm not seeing the multiple reliable WP:SIGCOV sources needed for WP:NORG, and I disagree that the one sentence in the oxford source counts for this, and I also disagree that a bunch of passing mentions/mentions in unreliable sources somehow makes up for this fact (and this isn't supported by my reading of WP:GNG) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask what unreliable sources you see here? Express and the PR thing from Japan (which was only there to give easier English language context to the other Japanese media source) are both gone.
    Several of the articles are about SOL specifically. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:HEY and WP:ATD. When it was nominated I would have voted the other way, per WP:TOOSOON, but with the newly added material I feel it now just crosses the line of notability and will likely improve in the future. 5Q5|✉ 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Among the newly added sources like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, etc., which do you think are the best examples that prove SIGCOV here? Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV
I've assembled this here for users to review. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments made by LWG and 5Q5. The article's improved substantially since nomination and good RSes have been identified. An an aside, remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs. National Catholic Reporter and The Debrief aren't RSes for the existence of God or UFOs, but they're fine to verify specific groups of notable people have joined together to promote a shared belief. Noting that someone believes in Sasquatch isn't actually a argument for deletion: Ghosts, Ghost rockets, and the Holy Ghost are all 100% encyclopedic topics. Feoffer (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs" I'm not familiar with that policy. Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was just an aside. GNG is met per LWG and 5Q5. More abstract discussion is for some other page.Feoffer (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS WP:SIGCOV Notes
The Central Minnesota Catholic Yes Maybe No One sentence mention of The Sol Foundation
Marin Independent Journal Yes Yes No Article is about organization's founder Garry Nolan; contains one sentence mention of Sol Foundation
Rice University "Archives of the Impossible" conference website No Maybe Maybe Two sentence mention of the Sol Foundation in the speaker bio for Garry Nolan at a conference at which he was speaking
Newsweek Yes No No Consensus-determined unreliable source per WP:NEWSWEEK
International Social Science Journal Yes Yes No One sentence mention of The Sol Foundation in this 33-page article
popmatters.com Yes No Yes WP:USERGENERATED entertainment website
. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Yes Yes No Another one sentence mention
Society of Catholic Scientists Yes Yes No Another one sentence mention
la Repubblica Yes Yes No Another one sentence mention
Focus Magazine Yes Yes Yes Report on the club's conference
Niconico Unknown No Unknown WP:USERGENERATED video sharing site a la YouTube
La Razón Yes Yes No Another one sentence mention
arXiv Unknown No Unknown Community-determined unreliable per WP:ARXIV (preprint hosting service)
The Debrief Yes No Yes The Debrief is the new website landing page for the podcast of ghosts/cryptozoology/ESP/flying saucer blogger Micah Hanks. While presented with an attractive new skin and under the headline "science and tech", it's the same pseudoscientific entertainment fanzine. Recent podcast episodes have uncritically discussed remote viewing [30], Atlantis / Lemuria [31], Thunderbirds [32], "The Deep State" [33], and Ancient Aliens-style cruft [34].
Sunday World Yes No No The Sunday World is a tabloid news outlet a la WP:DAILYEXPRESS and regularly peddles a variety of 'weird news' type articles. There's just a one sentence mention, in any case.
Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In your source evaluation, you left out Aleteia (2 mentions), Hartford Courant (3 mentions), The_Byte (3 mentions). WP:NEWSWEEK says: "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis." WP:ARXIV says: "generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts." The arXiv paper was written by subject matter expert Matthew Szydagis, a university physics professor who is also a member of UAP orgs. This is a lot of media coverage for a foundation less than two years old. Even if the article were to be deleted, it will surely be republished. Just tag it at top with {{more citations needed}}. 5Q5|✉ 12:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching that. It appears each of the three I missed are more fleeting, incidental mentions that only prove the organization exists (which is not in doubt), but don't meet the requirements of WP:ORGCRIT.
Insofar as Newsweek; when we evaluate an outlet, like Newsweek, on a case by case basis that (usually) means we accept some limited use for the mundane and routine. Obviously, reporting on a club of people whose leader may believe aliens are jumping through dimensional portals to conduct medical experiments on humans [35] is not the kind of basic, nuts and bolts use portended by WP:NEWSWEEK.
Insofar as arXiv goes, generously assuming the author is an expert, it may be usable for WP:V under WP:SPS, but unpublished manuscripts are -- by the fact they're unpublished -- not significant in coverage so are not SIGCOV. That said, a physics professor is no more an SME on flying saucers than a professor of music theory, since flying saucer belief is not a subject that falls within the bailiwick of physics. An SME on flying saucers might be a professor of folklore or sociology, or a clinical psychiatrist. Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On this narrow point, I gotta side with Chetsford. If we let everyone with a Phd and ARXIV qualify as a SME expert, we'd be lost. It's not "scientifically important", that's a red herring. Feoffer (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, The Debrief is reliable in the very limited context of profiling a like-minded organization. No one questions that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one questions that the group exists. Indeed, no one does. But see WP:BUTITEXISTS. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll reword. Not to put too fine a point on it: no one questions The Debrief's reporting that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Existence ≠ Notability Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one here has suggested otherwise. At issue is whether Debrief functions as an RS in the very limited context of profiling an association of notable people with admittedly fringe beliefs. Feoffer (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The community has previously critically discussed TheDebrief [36]. Opinions ranged from "Treat it as a group blog / self published source" (User:MrOllie); "the DeBrief is weighted toward generating sensational clickbait rather than reliably sourced journalism" (User:LuckyLouie); "Largely self-published website with a lean towards UFO/alien crankery and sometimes questionable pop science takes" (User:Bon_courage). MatthewM stated it was "highly credible, least biased, and mostly factual". Chetsford (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get it, it's a complex source, but look just at the matter at hand. Is there any reason their 'reporting' is mistaken or erroneous about who is in the organization and what they've said in the direct quotes? Feoffer (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown. We can't undertake the WP:OR needed to analyze the veracity of specific claims. The only thing we can say for certain is it doesn't meet our standards of reliability. Chetsford (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: User's assessment of Popmatters is factually completely wrong; it's like saying the "New Yorker" is USERGENERATED because they take open submissions. They clearly have editorial control as seen here. From our own sourced article at https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Google&lang=en&q=PopMatters#Staff:
PopMatters publishes content from worldwide contributors. Its staff includes writers from backgrounds ranging from academics and professional journalists to career professionals and first time writers. Many of its writers are published authorities in various fields of study.[2][7] Notable former contributors include David Weigel, political reporter for Slate,[8] Steven Hyden, staff writer for Grantland and author of Whatever Happened to Alternative Nation?,[9] and Rob Horning, executive editor of The New Inquiry.[10] Karen Zarker is the senior editor.
As I said above, assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles in direct opposition to sourcing guidelines. DO NOT take either of us at our word. Take the articles and facts at their word, and remember we are compelled to live and die by Wikipedia rules alone here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be adding them later:
Please evaluate these too and attempt to be accurate. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not tenable. It's the third time you've apparently Google searched "Sol Foundation" and blasted every responsive link into this thread as purported proof of SIGCOV then demanded we prove each one isn't. The San Francisco Standard is addressed in the OP. Word on Fire Catholic Ministries is obviously not RS. Your approach is not conducive to a coherent discussion.
"assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles" This is the third time you've pivoted from discussion into attacking the motivations of individual editors. I would again strongly encourage you to take your concerns to WP:ANI. I'm not personally offended by your ongoing aspersions, they're just derailing to the AfD. Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Word on Fire is patently WP:RS to discuss a topic of 'Would Extraterrestrial Intelligence Disprove Christianity?'. Again, as I demonstrated to all above with the La Razon example that you utterly mischaracterized--and that finding is incontrovertible--you're doing something here that is problematic. The article passes notability for the small scale of the article that we have. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your actions, as you seem to be tilting at increasingly tall windmills. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to AfD closer: nominator has NOT rebutted my revealing they misrepresented Popmatters in their table, because that alone with the rest pushes this into basic trivial Notability compliance. That's why it's such a problem to them getting a successful deletion here; at that point the article subject will always be notable going forward. Diff here; there is no possible policy-based counter-argument to diminuize the Popmatters piece or present the site as not fine for WP:RS. This alone resolves the AFD. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have, thus far in this discussion, scattered more than two dozen different sources into the wind including unambiguously non-RS ones like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, and a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers. It's easier for you to take a pass through Google Search and shotgun any URL you find into the discussion than it is for me to offer rebuttal after surrebuttal for why each of these random links don't pass any realistic threshold of sourcing. So, if I stop responding to any particular item, assume it's for no other reason than I simply can't keep up. Chetsford (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for compiling this table. I'm not sure I agree that a source is unreliable for information about the existence and nature of a pseudoscientific UAP organization simply because the source also publishes similar pseudoscience. If anything it would be reason to scrutinize whether the source is truly WP:INDEPENDENT. But I haven't seen any reason to think that The Debrief is unreliable on the question of whether The Sol Foundation exists and is notable in the realm of UAP-related orgs. Also, as 5Q5 pointed out, you seem to have omitted the Hartford Courant and Aleteia citations, both of which seem to pass all three criteria. By my count the Focus, Hartford Courant, and Aleteia citations are sufficient to satisfy WP:SIRS, and the citations to The Debrief, arXiv, and the organization's own website pass the lower bar of being appropriate for inclusion, if not necessarily for establishing notability. The reason my keep vote is weak is that all the significant coverage about this org seems to relate to a single symposium they hosted in 2023, while the repetition of that event in 2024 doesn't seem to have gotten much if any coverage. There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct". But I'm not there yet. -- LWG talk 13:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct"" WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY. Either it's notable or it isn't. It's not going to become non-notable in two years. Chetsford (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, but my weak keep vote isn't because I think it's notability might change, it's because I think it's notability is borderline and further information might convince me that it never was notable. -- LWG talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even though I voted keep, the article was a mess. I took a buzz saw to it to clear out the distracting material that will have to go anyway if this closes with keep. -- LWG talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just notification on a relevant matter: Chetsford put in an RfC on the reliability of The Debrief. In the Discussion, they say: "A current and contentious AfD is also presently turning on whether or not this is RS." I would imagine the referenced AfD is this one, (Personal attack removed). Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ben.Gowar: How many times do you have to be warned not to cast aspersions? I am sick and tired of your underhand, snide and generally all-round bad faith questioning of Chetsford's motives. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get the sense that my talk page is a better place for those descriptors. In the case of this AfD, I'm mostly trying to keep interested parties informed of consequential RfCs. Especially if the AfD "turns" on it. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are persistently failing to assume good faith, peristently castining aspersions and then persistently sealioning when called on it. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, it is absolutely this AfD. And I purposely avoided mentioning it in the RSN RfC so as to avoid the possibility of canvassing editors from RSN to this AfD. Insofar as the theory in your edited comment [37] that I'm plotting to get The Debrief deprecated to "turn" this AfD ... that's not possible. The RfC on The Debrief will run at least 30 days. This AfD will close in the next week or two. Chetsford (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either this AfD is "presently turning on whether or not this is RS," or it is not. You have stated that it is. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it obviously is; read the above comments -- its name has been invoked 21 times. But that's an entirely separate matter from the RSN listing. Once again, the RSN discussion will run 30 days. This AfD will close somewhere in the next 5-14 days. Nothing that happens at RSN will have any impact here. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but you seem convinced there are these far-reaching plots converging on certain subject matter. I'm at a loss as to what I can do to convince you that's not the case. Chetsford (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In both cases (AfD and the RfC), the reliability of The Debrief is in question. Interested editors should know. As far as the RSN discussion having no "impact here," that seems improbable given that AfD readers interested in the reliability of The Debrief may indeed look at the RfC (regardless of whether the discussion has run 30 days or not). I suppose there's the possibility of no immediate impact, if no one looks or no one references it (but the transparent nature of Wikipedia seems to render that improbable).
In any case, if the AfD discussion does not result in deletion, then the RfC will probably have an impact on the article later (especially if The Debrief citation remains). So, editors interested in this article should know. Ben.Gowar (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hadn't intended to study this article, but all the vituperative, handwaving ad hominem shouting by Keep enthusiasts convinced me that I should. Having done so, I am satisfied that there are no serious reasons for keeping it, and that Chetsford is correct. Athel cb (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Pretty much agree with what LWG, 5Q5, and Feoffer have said. The article's definitely gotten better since it was nominated (WP:HEY), and sources like Focus Magazine, Hartford Courant, and Aleteia look like they give us enough WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS for WP:NORG. Notability might be on the edge, but it seems good enough for now, and anything else that needs fixing looks WP:SURMOUNTABLE with some regular editing. Deleting it now feels a bit much with the sourcing we've got and the chance to improve it more. Omegamilky (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Of the sources that I find reliable and more coverage than one sentence (Hartford Courant, Aleteia, Focus), the first covers the founding; the second and third cover the organization's conferences in 2023 and 2024, and give a short mention of the organization. This feels WP:TOOSOON for an article, where the subject has not reached the threshold of notability. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very sympathetic to this argument, we don't need to be covering every RECENT update about the UFO world. But where else could we put the "Roster" of notable people who collaborated together? That's the primary information I'd want readers to be able to reference: who is in which UFO "Supergroup". I know I certainly can't keep it straight without a reference. Feoffer (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it Wikipedia's job to track membership in different UFO organizations? How does this work with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (WP:NOTDATABASE)? For reference, I don't think Wikipedia tracks membership on boards of different corporations and nonprofits, even if that information could be interesting. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the members weren't notable and their association not covered in RSes, it'd be an easy delete. But it's a group of eight notable individuals who have biographical articles and RSes do report on the collaboration between them. Feoffer (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this seems to be a textbook WP:NOTINHERITED argument. Chetsford (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument, per above, is that SIGCOV exists, not that it's inherited. But for those not swayed about a dedicated article, the alternative would seem to be redundantly covering the association in the eight separate bios, which seems... suboptimal.Feoffer (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Suppose there were eight siblings who were independently notable under WP:BIO. Suppose they share a similar Early Life section with the same parentage. Are their parents therefore also notable? I think not. Whether or not this article exists, editors can make a judgment on whether to include association with the Sol Foundation on the other bios.
    Assuming that WP:SIGCOV does not exist (which is how we started this thread, with "where else could we put the "Roster" of notable people who collaborated together"), noting an association across multiple bios is not a problem. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I don't believe an article about an organization like this, who pushes fringe UFO theories, should exist without critical sources. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Unidentified_flying_object#United_States_2. Sourcing does not look particualrly strong. Newsweek probably most independent one. But overall, don't think that this is enough to esatablish notability - which seems borderline. I looked at this a few times and the best I could come up with, besides deleting, was a merge until more coverage by stronger sources for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep this is a matter of considerable public interest. The article is supported by valid references and can continue to be improved. The Sol Foundation exists. There is increasing suspicion that a group of editors on Wikipedia are conspiring to traduce or remove articles on the UFO topic. People are openly stating they suspect intelligence agencies are manipulating Wikipedia and have agents involved in this process to remove information on the subject from the public sphere. Recent edits of the article on Harald Malmgren have been discussed and suspected of CIA involvement. The legitimacy of Wikipedia as a neutral source of information is coming under serious question because, as Orwell once said, "omission is the most effective form of a lie". We must be better, we must allow a range of information which is of interest to the public, if it can be supported by third party sources. There are enormous articles on this site about wiping your bum (literally) and songs that failed to make the final in Eurovision ten years ago. There are thousands of frivolous pages pon this site which are not questioned and yet the UFO topic - which is a matter of Congressional investigation - is continuously brought down and questioned. It is a serious matter.Aetheling1125 (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allegedly being a "matter of considerable public interest" or the fact that WP also hosts articles on Eurovision Song Contest songs are not valid Keep reasons, nor is your claim [38] that "there is a clique within Wikipedia seeking to control information". The claim that the CIA is suspect of editing Wikipedia is also not a valid Keep reason. Chetsford (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aetheling1125, I've also argued above that the article should be kept. But there's absolutely no need to look at this as a "high-stakes" conversation, much less to invoke Orwell. The organization may be covered on its own page or it may be covered elsewhere (like the pages of its members or a page about UFO groups). No one is suggesting it be omitted entirely! Feoffer (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MouseCursor or a keyboard? 13:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to Garry Nolan. I agree with most of the source evaluation table (including Chetsford's follow-up comments). I find it rebuts a lot of the keep arguments made before it, and after it I'm not really seeing much of a (policy-based) argument to keep. I think the one point where I differ is that I don't think PopMatters would fall under WP:USERGENERATED. That and Focus seem like the stronger sources. LWG's and Feoffer's argument that The Debrief's reporting could be used to establish notability is...not realistic. The additional sources provided later by Very Polite Person plainly don't meet WP:SIRS, and bringing up a source already covered in the nomination is a pretty obvious example of bludgeoning this discussion. I don't envy the admin who ends up having to control information and awareness using Wikipedia policies wade through all this to figure out consensus. hinnk (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Garry Nolan. I agree with Chetsford's source evaluation table and most of the sources appear to focus on Nolan. The stand-alone page of Nolan already includes references to the Sol Foundation. --Enos733 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I flagged the article with {{more citations needed}}. If the foundation is less than two years old and all it needs is one to three better refs, perhaps give it until the end of the year, then renominate if no change? Seems like the article is destined to be republished per WP:RADP if deleted. 5Q5|✉ 11:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another option could be to draftify the article now and republish when/if more sources become available. -- LWG talk 12:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Garry Nolan. There are plenty of passing mentions to show that it exists, but aside from copypastes of press releases and sensationalism e.g. The DeBrief, it's a WP:NOTJUSTYET situation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good faith nom, and for the record, the canvassing and aspersions here are an unhelpful sideshow. However, I think that the San Francisco Standard and Focus Magazine pieces are sufficient WP:SIGCOV. I encourage the closing admin to actually read the San Francisco Standard article (1), because to me, it is clearly more than just an "event listing". The reporter actually attended the Sol Foundation's symposium. The article discusses his experience as an attendee, includes interviews with people he met there, and generally describes how the event went. It isn't just an event listing, it's an in-depth piece about an event hosted by the Sol Foundation - that is WP:SIGCOV. Because Chetsford concedes the Focus Magazine piece is SIGCOV, that's two sources and we've now passed WP:GNG. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 02:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't considered the San Francisco Standard article as it does not appear to be cited in the current version of the article. If that is included with the existing sources it would seem to make this a clear-cut Keep. -- LWG talk 17:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — (weak to moderate) — Normally I would add my own arguments, but LWG and 5Q5 summed-up my feelings on the matter. Further, some of the "delete" arguments seem to bordering-on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, though there are plenty of good-faith arguments, as well, granted. In summation, I think the sources we have just about push us over the edge for notability and coverage. I suppose my position is that the default should be "keep," and, in this case, I am not swayed past that by the "delete" opinions. MWFwiki (talk) 20:05, 29 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. On numbers alone we have a roughly even split, but many of these keep !votes do not present a solid rationale. Some of the firmer ones point to his frequent media appearances, but that's not the same thing as having independent WP:SIGCOV. The delete !votes, particularly the later ones, are quite clear and have not been significantly refuted. asilvering (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hartley

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jon Hartley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think a great deal has changed since the previous AFD which I closed as G5, but was clearly going to end in delete otherwise. I'm unable to find any sources that come close to meeting WP:BIO and with an h-index of 10 it's unlikely that WP:PROF is met. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be notable enough with his media presence and recognition. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid rationale. Where are the sources providing substantial, independent coverage? SmartSE (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt. Far WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. No GNG as few sources are independent of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this current PhD student. I guess there could be a case for WP:NCREATIVE with the podcast, but I do not see the reviews or other signs of impact (anyway, that would tend to make a case for a redirect to an article on the podcast). No other notability is apparent; in particular, I am not impressed by inclusion in listicles. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanding on my delete rationale. The subject has published several papers, some of them in good journals, as in the GS profile. All academics publish papers, and this in itself is WP:MILL: we look for impact for WP:NPROF notability. At first glance, the first paper is highly cited, but the citation count combines a paper of the subject (which has no citations) with a paper of some of his coauthors. The second item also combines several papers, although less abusively. In a high citation field, I don't think that this demonstrates the needed impact: it would be surprising for a PhD student to have the necessary notability. Authoring pieces in the popular press is similar; we do not consider reporters to be automatically notable. For WP:NPROF C7, I'm seeing a small number of quotations in a quotable field, and I think this also falls short. GNG notability appears to hinge on whether inclusion in a listicle contributes enough. Past discussion has been fairly skeptical of this. My view is that it contributes only slightly. I also wish to comment that I am concerned about a pattern where relatively new accounts that have not previously shown an interest in AfD leave a "keep" !vote here approximately halfway through a string of 10-20 AfD discussion !votes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Further expanding on the GNG case. Later keep !votes made a better case for GNG. I am still not convinced -- I do not see independent coverage in reliable sources. The wharton piece is highly non-independent. The USA today opinion piece is authored, so not independent. I discount the Forbes listicle coverage, although I note that past discussion at AfD of similar listicles has gone in both directions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (people) says :"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."
Hartley is recognised as "notably influential" within the realm of ideologies, extending beyond his biography as a subject of secondary sources. His contributions to various news outlets, along with his role in conducting interviews with contemporaries and prominent figures AND being interviewed by them for his research, underscore the significance of his work in the field
1. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-:inflation-canadian-government-borrowing-billions/
2.https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jon-hartley-trudeau-should-listen-to-elon-musk-on-productivity
3.https://conversableeconomist.com/2024/03/13/interview-with-stephen-levitt-my-career-and-why-im-retiring-from-academia/
4.https://capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/p/episode-28-steven-d-levitt-freakonomics
5.https://americancompass.org/critics-corner-with-jon-hartley/
6.https://johnbatchelor.substack.com/p/the-future-of-canada-with-jon-hartley
I created this page because I believed his information was fragmented across various sources on the internet, and it would be worthwhile to compile it all in one place on Wikipedia.
Another criterion under WP:NACADEMIC states that a subject must "have had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." This criterion seems to apply to Hartley, given the influence of his research published in journals such as...
1.Journal of Financial Economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/660506eb488a1777a90db94a/1711605484880/HartleyJermann_2024_JFE.pdf
2.Publications under Harvard Business School https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=67312
3.Publications under Economic Letters https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabdb744edb5235541b0b1/1676328375934/HartleyEL2021.pdf
4.Publication under Jurnal of Urban economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabcff916adf2105c011b0/1676328191950/GyourkoHartleyKrimmel_JUE_2021.pdf
Fenharrow (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gjb0zWxOb Sorry but I dont see how writing a couple of articles in newspapers qualifies for NPROF#7, can you specify what exactly his impact was? If such an impact was indeed present, then it should be possible to find WP:RS to cover this impact, without such sources I think NPROF#7 will not apply. While he did write articles in Globe and Mail and NP, he was not covered by these outlets as far as I can see (see WP:JOURNALIST), the coverage would have to be a profile about him to count towards notability. Most of the people you listed had a long and illustrious academic and public career and were notable due to their academic impact as indicated by experts in the field, not really comparable to here (actually making the point here that this is WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 14:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wharton School article, published by a highly reputable academic institution, clearly qualifies as a profile and underscores Hartley's recognition in academia. But even putting WP:NPROF aside, I think it's evident he independently meets WP:GNG. Per WP:SIGCOV, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the standard, and that is plainly met here. This includes not just op-eds he authored, but also interviews such as in L'Express. This coverage goes well beyond routine mentions and shows that he is regarded as a notable public commentator and scholar. GNG simply requires reputable, independent sources, which he has here. Also, extensive op-eds should not be so quickly dismissed as they are directly relevant to NPROF#7 which requires that, "The person has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I found he has published work ranging from Globe and Mail, National Post, and USA Today. These are not blogs, they are professionally vetted publications that only platform notable experts. This certainly conforms with the requirement of NPROF#7. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
expanding on this based on the comments regarding him passing WP:GNG or WP:BIO, I truly dont see WP:THREE independent reliable sources that have in-depth coverage about him (in fact I dont even see one, there is a piece from his alma mater, there are opinion pieces that he has writen himself but nothing about him from an independent source). --hroest 15:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just publishing stuff contributes nothing to notability. It is having the publications noted (cited) by others that gives notability through WP:Prof#C1. There is nothing like enough of that here. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG so the arguments about the SNG (which I did not analyze) are not relevant. IMO exceeds the norm for GNG compliance, including several GNG references. Article really needs expansion using material from those references, but that's an article development issues rather than one for here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    North8000, I respect your opinion and experience on AfDs, and I always aim to be persuadable. Would you perhaps detail how you think the sources meet GNG and SIGCOV? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done several thousand NPP reviews and will tell my overall "take" on it. I look at it holistically, including the multiple relevant guidelines and policies combined and the normal community standards of applying them. Using the reference numbers in the article version as of the date of this post, IMO #2 and #5 meet the norm for GNG interpretation, even if not 100% bulletproof. The Forbes listing (with bio) bolsters that. High ranking places providing his bio are not GNG but also reflective. Same with what's in some of the other sources. As noted I don't think that the academic SNG is needed, (and I've not analyzed that) but at quick glance some strong and detailed arguments have been presented that he also meets the SNG which would be a "belt and suspenders" thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a lot of experience with the SNG, and I do not think he is very close to meeting WP:NPROF C1 (the main criterion). WP:NPROF C7 is pretty consonant with GNG. Of course, a pass of GNG suffices. As far as that goes, the Wharton piece (#2) fails independence, and I do not place weight on Forbes. I agree that source #1 should be given some weight, although it is an WP:RSOPINION by the subject. I will mull over. Thank you! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The "Forbes 30 Under 30" designation is not made-up per WP:MADEUP. It involves a thorough vetting process by industry experts too, not just journalists. Overall, the subject's work meets WP:PROF's first stated criterion, and his Google Scholar profile shows a strong body of work in economics that has been cited extensively. The page can be improved, but it's worth keeping in my view. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    how did you evaluate his academic profile? His GS profile is far from reaching any of the 8 criteria outlined there. Neither his citation count nor his h-index is anywhere close to a pass of the "average professor" test. Yes it is impressive for a junior researcher, but nowhere close to a lasting impact on his discipline. We cannot go on future potential but on available evidence. --hroest 03:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His GS profile is a long long way from meeting WP:Prof#C1. Maybe he will come up to standard in future but not yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like WP:NPROF is a red herring here. At any rate it would be really quite extraordinary for someone to pass WP:NPROF before they've even got their doctorate. What isn't clear to me from this discussion is whether he meets WP:GNG in spite of not meeting WP:NPROF.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read through this with a view to closing before realizing that I had voted haha. I stand by my delete rationale. There is, in my reading, no convincing rationale for meeting NPROF (with the possible exception of C7). Many of the sources that have been presented are interviews with Hartley, or otherwise not independent (ie the Warton source). The Miami Herald one is similarly not independent, because they are publishing an announcement for an evernt that they are sponsoring! We're not at GNG here, pretty clearly imo. Eddie891 Talk Work 08:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hoover_Institution#Members I do not think he has enough notability or source coverage for a stand alone article like this. He seems mostly known to be a Hoover Institute fellow. Considering that the previous AFD result was pretty much SNOW delete, this may be a decent alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Review of the references and presence based on Google search and author's profile, suggests that, in my opinion, there's sufficient independent coverage and notability through media coverages, interviews, and invited opinions as "analyst and economist." It's true that he might be up-and-coming, but that doesn't inhibit inclusion on WP at the moment with current information. WeWake (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: To meet WP:GNG, I don't see any independent, reliable, secondary sources in the article and I couldn't find anything online. The Wharton article is not independent: the subject was a student there. Forbes 30 under 30 (2017) is two sentences. Mercatus, MacDonald-Laurier, Hoover are not independent. Where are the independent, reliable sources with significant coverage?
For WP:PROF#C1 (academic influence through paper reviews and citations), the subject has one highly cited paper "The local residential land use regulatory environment across U.S. housing markets: Evidence from a new Wharton index" but no others. More is needed. Some here have argued for WP:PROF#C7 (popular influence), but one interview in L'Express and a little-known podcast doesn't meet the standard to me. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MouseCursor or a keyboard? 13:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm surprised that this has generated so much discussion when it seems like a fairly clear-cut case to me. If we have determined that WP:PROF is not met, that makes things easier as WP:BIO is less subjective. I still don't see anything which demonstrates that BIO is met - Forbes is independent, but not substantial; Wharton is substantial, but not independent (they are writing about their student and these kinds of articles are inherently promotional and several keep !voters do not seem to acknowledge this). Those are the only non-primary sources where he is the subject, articles he has written are of no use for determining notability. SmartSE (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:NPROF is a red herring here. According to NPROF, this guideline "is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines."
    I agree this seems like a "fairly clear-cut case". But I think the sources provide clear-cut case for keep given the sourcing which meets WP:GNG.
    In particular:
    1. WP:SIGCOV
    2. Sources are sometimes not independent, but most are.
    3. The "Presumed" aspect of GNG does not guarantee inclusion, but it looks to me like a standalone page here has more support than not.
    4. I added several new RSes that I found, including some Spanish sources that discuss ex-Governor Jeb Bush and Hartley in the same sentence since they founded the Economic Club of Miami together. This economist is pretty obviously notable in my opinion. [39][40][41][42][43][44]
    Lastly, @North8000 also has the right approach in saying, "Using the reference numbers in the article version as of the date of this post, IMO #2 and #5 meet the norm for GNG interpretation..." Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - This is extremely on the line imo, but the subject seems not to meet WP:GNG. The only independent coverage that's even slightly in-depth is the Miami Herald article (pretty good imo) and the Forbes editor profile, which I quote here in full: Hartley cofounded Real Time Macroeconomics, an economic research organization creating new macroeconomic health indicators using internet based data such as job openings, layoff announcements, and self-reported wages. Hartley is a policy expert and contributor for Forbes and the Huffington Post. This is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, as a smattering of expert quotes, non-independent profiles, and media interviews is the typical coverage for a person who is not yet but will become notable. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vote updated to delete. As Eddie891 points out, the Miami Herald is a sponsor of the event they're covering. That puts us at zero substantive coverage, so a pretty easy call to Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Suriname0 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should note: I wasn't able to access in full the L'Express and El Nuevo Herald articles. The first seemed like an interview and the latter seemed like passing mentions, but if they contain significant coverage it might be useful to quote here in full the paragraphs that discuss Hartley directly and in depth. Suriname0 (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you wanted the full text quoted out, here it is for your convenience. As you indicated, the Miami Herald article goes into Hartley's founding of the Economic Club of Miami deeply and the purpose of the club and its conference. Specifically, in the article subsection entitled, "How the Economic Club of Miami Started," it goes extensively into Hartley's involvement:
    "The Economic Club of Miami was started in 2021. Hartley had started coming down from New York to visit his parents in South Florida and felt like while finance professionals were moving to Miami, they did not have the same type of events or programs they had up North. Hartley reached out to Jeb Bush Jr. who he got to know working as economic advisor to Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign in 2016, and in January 2021, they put together a Google document to brainstorm about creating the group. Lourdes Castillo, a veteran public relations professional and executive, and Jeremy Schwarz, joined, too. All four are co-founders and Hartley serves as chairman."
    Hartley is interviewed extensively throughout the article such as here:
    "'Our goal is to build the signature emerging markets finance conference that brings financiers from around the world to talk about the trajectories of Latin American economies,' Hartley said in an interview with the Miami Herald. 'And both ways: outsiders investing in Latin America and Latin Americans investing elsewhere.' Recent growth and opportunities in South Florida will be a topic of discussion but without skipping over the emerging challenges, said Hartley, also an economics PhD candidate at Stanford University."
    And here "'It won’t be just about investing,' Hartley said. 'We will discuss housing issues in many different respects including the supply of affordable housing.' Not attending but likely to be talked: new Argentine president Javier Milei. 'Milei is sort of a catalyst agent for economic liberalization in Argentina,' said Hartley, 34, the chairman of the Economic Club of Miami, and so, 'with that, you’ve seen a resurgence of interest in investing in Latin America.'"
    Hartley is also the lead photo of the article and the subtext of the photo reads, "Jon Hartley giving the introduction at an Economic Club of Miami event on November 7, 2022 featuring Kenneth Griffin of Citadel and Miami Mayor Francis Suarez. Held at Miami Dade College."
    In respect to the other articles, this Nuevo Herald article says the following (translated to English for convenience), "Its other founders, businessman Jeb Bush Jr. and economist Jon Hartley, are also scheduled to speak at the private gathering of about 130 people." This prominently puts Jeb Bush and Jon Hartley in the same sentence, Bush is obviously a notable individual and it is listing Hartley and Bush as co-founders of this organization it is writing a piece on.
    In this Nuevo Herald article, it reads: "Now it's Miami's turn, now ready to play in the major league. The city has earned a place at the 'same table' with executives from major companies, says Castillo, who serves on the board with Jeb Bush Jr., attorney Jeremy Schwartz, senior advisor to Mayor Suárez, and economist Jon Hartley, the club's president." Once again, the article, that is writing extensively about Hartley's organization, puts Bush and Hartley in the same sentence, demonstrating his notability and bolstering his case to be notable enough for inclusion in this article.
    This Nuevo Herald article is a repost of the Miami Herald article (since this is the sister paper), which contributes to the fact that this meets WP:SIGCOV given that this information listed above about Hartley was widely distributed in various languages (which also includes the L'Express article, which is obviously in French).
    Given that you mentioned the L'Express article, I will cover the most key points here. This is essentially an interview with this publication that covers Hartley's thoughts on the Trump Administration. Here are some key excerpts (translated to English for convenience, "In this profusion of analyses, Jon Hartley, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a think tank close to the Republican Party, and a doctoral candidate in economics at Stanford University, provides insight. To understand the protectionist shift in the United States, the researcher discusses the emergence, within both the left and the right, of a 'neo-populist' movement that challenges several foundations of the old neo-liberal consensus in Washington, including adherence to the principles of free trade." Now onto the interview, "L'Express: Do you share the fears of Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), regarding the consequences of the trade war between China and the United States on global growth? Jon Hartley: Regarding the potential long-term negative effects of the trade war on the global economy, I am more optimistic than most commentators. Chinese manufacturers depend in part on their ability to export to the United States, and American consumers are very happy to find cheap products from China. These factors are likely to eventually force the two countries to come to the negotiating table. It is also possible that some Chinese trade will be diverted to the United States via other countries, as has already been the case in Vietnam since the late 2010s." This demonstrates that Hartley has a notable opinion per WP:SIGCOV given that he is being interviewed in depth as a notable policy expert worthy of interviewing. The article also asks Hartley about Trump's trade policy, once again demonstrating above average notability, "'Does Donald Trump really have a trade strategy, or is he moving blindly? Donald Trump considered the asymmetry in trade barriers to be fundamentally unfair. And it's true that historically, most countries have imposed higher tariffs on the United States than the rates the United States imposed on them. Donald Trump's tariff increase in early April has opened negotiations with several countries. It's not impossible that, at the end of these negotiations, tariffs will eventually be lowered reciprocally, and in that case, this would be favorable to free trade. This is the most desirable scenario.'" I also plan on adding a couple more articles that bolster notability by showing that Hartley was Jeb Bush's 2016 economic policy adviser. I also found a Bloomberg article that discussed the Economic Club of Miami and quoted Hartley and mentioned Bush and him in the same sentence again. "Their arrival spurred last year the creation of the Economic Club of Miami, which hosted Monday’s event. 'We are trying to capture the zeitgeist of this Miami moment,' said Jon Hartley, chair of the club, which counts Jeb Bush’s son as one of its founders." I think this should do more than enough to bolster notability, not to mention all of other articles that were there before that I didn't even discuss here. Is this the information you were looking for or do you need anything else? Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi User:Gjb0zWxOb, this is helpful, thanks for quoting from the sources. These excerpts suggest to me that none of the other sources you quote from (excepting the Miami Herald piece) constitutes WP:SIGCOV, which continues to leave me ambivalent about keeping this article. (On that note, you might consider reviewing the language used in WP:SIGCOV: most of those articles are trivial mentions of Jon Hartley, and the interview is not a secondary source – see WP:INTERVIEWS. Notability in Wikipedia terms means receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not by being quoted alongside notable people or giving media quotes.) Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO few articles meet a stringent interpretation of GNG. IMO this one meets a typical community application of GNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think most BLPs meet WP:GNG (edit: or some other SNG, like academics or authors) fairly strictly, hence my ambivalence, but I agree this is not far from GNG interpretations of frequently-cited media experts. A hard call here, I don't envy the closing admin. Suriname0 (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Miami Herald article meets WP:GNG as it has extensive quotes from Hartley and showcases him speaking as the main picture of the article. His face is literally part of the article. Additionally, the event was not for a convention he was simply an attendee or speaker, but for the Economic Club of Miami, of which he was a founder. This event included other notable people from multiple industries and domains, such as Ken Griffin of Citadel financial, Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, Anthony Scaramucci, and Jorge Quiroga, the former president of Bolivia. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet GNG or BIO or NPROF. Going through the sources, I do not think that the subject has sigcov in independent third party sources. Forbes piece is a contribution by him, Forbes 30under30, despite insistence that the entries are vetted, it should not be a defining moment of any subject given that the award is essentially a youth award and there are many subjects fell hard from the fame after the award. While rare, dud entries can make their way onto their lists as well. The Miami Herald piece is essentially a conflict of interest piece given that the newspaper is a sponsor of the event. It is in their interest to have the event covered in a positive light. – robertsky (talk) 18:18, 30 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 Nayarit. asilvering (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Nayarit

[edit]
Coat of arms of Nayarit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A user blanked the page with summary: "Not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to meet WP:GNG" MouseCursor or a keyboard? 13:22, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Valley, Indiana

[edit]
Willow Valley, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here we have another WPA-produced puzzle, because every single reference I find for this is rail-related. Aside from a federal case involving the shipment of oack timber, I find references to this as a staging point for the gypsum mill which is indeed still around the corner on a short branch which splits off from this point. There's also the common railroad structure enumeration. But the post office dates are odd. Nonetheless the testimony at this point is that this is and was a rail point and not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with WeirdNAnnoyed. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:50, 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 13:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farida Mansy

[edit]
Farida Mansy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNASTICS. The two Instagram sources cannot be used to establish notability (and one of the sources doesn't even mention her name at all). The PDF is just a table of scores from a competition. Although she has won an award, it was with a team, and WP:NGYMNASTICS requires individual awards. I searched for sources and even did a regional search for Egypt, but found nothing. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 23:30, 3 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) 05:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 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 no consensus‎ for deletion, and none likely to arise. asilvering (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Allen

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Elise Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not convinced this person is notable. Yes she wrote a "New York Times bestseller", but even for that the primary reason it was a bestseller was because she coauthored it with Hilary Duff, and it seems likely many people bought it because they were fans of Duff – essentially ghostwriting in the open. She created some children's TV shows – even if those shows are notable, I don't think that necessarily makes her notable by extension. Note this article was already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elise_Allen in Feb 2020 but then recreated roughly 10 months later – and I'm not sure if anything had really changed between its deletion and its recreation. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:58, 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 23:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Pachauri

[edit]
Prateek Pachauri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most sources are minor mentions or routine coverage, insufficient for a standalone entry under WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Significantly expanded since the last !vote. Thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 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 12:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2005 European Taekwondo Championships

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
2005 European Taekwondo Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted back in 2022. Same issues still apply, but an editor continues to recreate the page. Onel5969 TT me 15:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Martial arts, and Latvia. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete and possibly block the editor in question for adding un-sourced content. JTZegers (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I feel that there is a chance for more sources to exist, but through newspapers.com all I got was one mention that is at least somewhat decent coverage. Ping if sources are found but does not seem like enough for notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is no different from the other 26 European Taekwondo Championships. I think the information on the website www.taekwondodata.com is sufficient. If additional sources are needed, is it not possible to request additional sources, not to delete this page? Deleting this page or blocking me is a non-solution. To write something about this page, I think you should take a look at the world taekwondo championship pages or other continental taekwondo tournaments. Many of them have been created this way.Pehlivanmeydani
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't find any significant independent coverage of this event. I also don't see how this article differs from all the other articles on the European Taekwondo Championships. Papaursa (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was hoping to find better arguments than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:USEFUL. I was also hesitant to seemingly advocate for a mass delete of articles. Papaursa (talk) 12:13, 24 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 Procedural close‎. Wrong venue. Redirects go to WP:RFD and an appropriate discussion is already underway at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 18#Karmelo Anthony. (non-admin closure) —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 23:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karmelo Anthony

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Karmelo Anthony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was previously closed as Speedy Delete. Per WP:BLPUNDEL this shouldn't have been recreated. A related discussion was closed with a consensus to delete if there is a consensus to exclude in the related RfC, and per WP:BIODEL and WP:BLP no consensus (which was the RfC result) defaults to exclusion. Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the existence of this redirect is being used to support the inclusion at the top of the target article of the name we're excluding from the article, in the form of a disambiguation statement (due to the similarity to the name Carmelo Anthony.) The WP:BLPCRIME standards argue against associating the name with the crime. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote and the redirect are both separate issues; the hatnote can be removed while the redirect can still be kept. Some1 (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect. Not just a plausible search term, but has in fact received 4000 hits over the past month. There is no consensus that a BLP violation is involved. There was, of course, no consensus to exclude in the RfC. StAnselm (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (wrong venue) - Delete name of person who was arrested when they were a minor, and has not been convicted. Gerson Fuentes had his name suppressed until after he was convicted. Is this the correct venue for a redirect? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:50, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 visit by Narendra Modi to the United States

[edit]
2025 visit by Narendra Modi to the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The visit mainly got coverage from the Indian media, however, it failed to create any WP:LASTING impact. It also fails WP:NOTNEWS. Wareon (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Heads of state visiting other countries are routine events which are covered when they happen and very rarely have lasting significance; and if they do, it's generally because of some specific event that takes place that is long remembered. It's been three months, and does anyone much remember Modi even being here, much less what was said or done? Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep-This visit of modi was covered by many reliable non-Indian outlets, including the BBC, AP, NBC, Al Jazeera, France 24 and many more. Also, it Passes WP:GNG, like @Bunnypranav said this article covers some specific agreements and deals made by both leaders. I think it shouldn't be deleted instead it should just be expanded like all other articles about leaders visiting other countries are (like 2025 visit by Donald Trump to the Middle East, 2023 visit by Fumio Kishida to Ukraine, 2023 visit by Xi Jinping to Russia). Also your saying that Heads of state visiting other countries are routine events which are covered when they happen and very rarely have lasting significance It's been three months, and does anyone much remember Modi even being here, much less what was said or done? then it the article 2023 visit by Xi Jinping to Russia still getting international coverage ?, most of references provided in that article are only Russian and Chinese sources not worldwide. If you think this article should get deleted, then delete that article before since That visit mainly got coverage from the russian and chinese media.
    BangashTalib (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Foreign visits should only warrant articles when necessary, e.g. 2025 visit by Donald Trump to the Middle East, an instance of a subject that has a sufficient impact and content that goes broader than agreements between world leaders. WP:NOTNEWS is rightfully applicable given that much of the content here can be read in one of the articles cited. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but article needs significant work - I disagree that this did not receive coverage outside of Indian media, a simple search would uncover its prominent coverage in western media. Regarding its significance, given the meeting covered a substantial trade agreement between the two countries and enhanced military cooperation, and was followed shortly thereafter by Trump's reciprocal tariff announcement as well as his 'involvement' in the India-Pak ceasefire, there is a case to be made for the enduring notability of this event. The article needs to be rewritten and expanded, I have started to do so and suggest we apply a template and give other editors the chance to enhance further before deleting. Schwinnspeed (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to List of international prime ministerial trips made by Narendra Modi#2025/India–United States relations per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The sources are almost entirely news coverage of a current event, and as Ratnahastin points out, this is a pretty routine visit. Only one of the Reuters articles from the "Significance" section has coverage of the visit after it happened, and that's a passing one-sentence mention. The sources from Schwinnspeed are all news coverage from the time of the visit and don't help address that issue. hinnk (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect Not a particularly significant international trip, routine news that doesn't need a standalone article. Reywas92Talk 23:29, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plantification (literary device)

[edit]
Plantification (literary device) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not provide evidence that the term exists in the literature or is used in practice. FULBERT (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Yes, people use plants in metaphors and other literary tropes, but the utterly random set of book hits shows how bogus this is. Mangoe (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I did manage to find mention in a 2017 Taylor & Francis book, but I can't really see where this term is really being used. Most of the results I'm finding use the term differently - most often in relation to planting/ecology. Most places that cover this sort of transformation appear to refer to it more as shapeshifting or transmogrification, but predominantly shapeshifting. If it were somewhat more heavily covered we could maybe justify including it in the shapeshifting article, but I'll be honest in that the T&F source was the only one I was able to easily find that would really be useable. I'm open to changing my mind if someone can find good sourcing, but offhand this just seems to be an obscure literary term that is very infrequently used. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)
I agree with you @ReaderofthePack. I actually like the concept of it, yet liking the concept and finding evidence it is actually being used are different things. I wish we could locate more evidence. FULBERT (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what the minimum threshold is for Wiktionary? Maybe this could be included as a definition there? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ReaderofthePack I do not really edit in Wiktionary, but doing a quick search it seems a word must be attested, and I think this one may not pass that criteria. FULBERT (talk) 16:46, 24 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky Rajput

[edit]
Pinky Rajput (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources are unreliable. An article in Indian Express is dead link. Non notable. Afstromen (talk) 11:00, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kishore Bhatt

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kishore Bhatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Absolutely non notable Afstromen (talk) 10:47, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Babaria

[edit]
Amar Babaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He has only one news source (Tribune). Filmography is totally unsourced. No significant news coverage. Afstromen (talk) 10:31, 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 keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great British Energy Act 2025

[edit]
Great British Energy Act 2025 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable to have a separate page to Great British Energy. Landpin (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They two articles are about two different things. One's an organization, and the other's an Act of Parliament which is clearly notable in its own right as part of the law of the land. Having been passed, the Act, unless amended, is now a static entity. GBE itself is not; it has a past political history, a pre-history in terms of the startup organization created last year, and will do things in the future - starting with the appointment of senior managememt - that make it separately notable from the Act.

I can see some material in the article on the Act that should have gone into the GBE article instead; I've removed it, and added hatnotes to both articles to stop it from happening again. I've also put the modern slavery amendment stuff in. — The Anome (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The background to the legislation is the background to the organisation. The functions of the organization are provisions of the legislation. The responsibility of the organization are provisions of the legislation.
What is the sort of thing that should be on the legislation page, but not the organisation page? Landpin (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amendments, just for starters. Parliamentary discussion, if expanded further. Voting. Potentially in future: notable court cases involving it, amendments, related statutory instruments... — The Anome (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Like the National Health Service Act 1946, this article documents the legislative history of the organization it establishes. But unique to an article such as the NHS Act 1946, this article, the GBE Act 2025, appropriately includes context about Great British Energy, not just the legislative history. A fellow editor has made constructive edits to improve the article by refining its content and focus. Ihaveabadname (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep/Maybe merge per the others (acts versus organisations, both notable in their own right). If the articles should be merged in the future, please consider using the process described in WP:MERGEINIT instead of a request for deletion. Your initial reasoning would suggest that you don't want the content removed. There is precedent for Wikipedia having its content about an act as a subsection for another article (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_UK_legislation). If a merger is suggested, I would not be against it, but at the moment the article has some of the political history/reactions to the bill & act which I am not sure would be left standing in the article about the organisation. --Komonzia (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Great British Energy. Sure, legislation can be notable, but no, being "part of the law of the land" does not mean it's automatically notable or that a separate article is needed. Content is largely duplicative and better covered in the main article. Amendments, legislative history, and court cases can also be covered in the main aricle, which should naturally describe the history and origins of the agency – if there's a lawsuit about the agency that cites the law, it's still relevant to the agency. Reywas92Talk 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as an Energy law of a large country, it is, or will almost immediately become, notable. The entity that it creates is separate. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. English and UK Acts of Parliament usually satisfy GNG with significant coverage in Halsbury's Statutes and Current Law Statutes. James500 (talk) 02:38, 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 14:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banknotes of the Swakopmund Bookshop

[edit]
Banknotes of the Swakopmund Bookshop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Absolutiva (talk) 09:56, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orowo (given name)

[edit]
Orowo (given name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NNAME. Nobody of that name is as of yet notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 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 no consensus‎. Editors agree that we should not have this article in its present state, but are ambivalent over whether it needs deletion or something else. At any rate, it looks like that "something else" can happen editorially. asilvering (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore MRT and LRT lines

[edit]
List of Singapore MRT and LRT lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequate references given the amount of information present; Most, if not all, of the information present can be found on the main articles for the MRT, the LRT, and the individual lines. George13lol2 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 11 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) 08:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem here in my opinion is that the article is not what the title claims. This is a sort of construction planner or construction history, for lack of a better term. It's not just a list, and trying to use it as one left me frustrated trying to figure out how many MRT and LRT lines there are in Singapore in total. I'm not really seeing the rationale for this article in its current form, and its sheer size makes it unwieldy, but I can see the rational for an article at this title, just not the one that we have right now. I don't have a clear target for merging or redirecting, so I'm left without a formal opinion on how to close this AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per S5A-0043, fails to satisfy WP:NLIST with too much content not "discussed as a group". This is a well-laid-out, fanciful list article that has far too much information for the sourcing, becoming an indiscriminate collection of information. I will submit that there is original research and the content strays into fringe theories. The "MRT lines" section has "Service commencement" dates of 36 and 37 years ago. It includes unsourced dates and "ages", which will require meticulous yearly editing to remain up-to-date. Many entries have the length listed as "TBD," even on lines in service for 30 or more years. While I champion ATD, it would be a monumental task to merge any salvageable content, and a redirect would not seem possible with the title-to-content disconnect. Because the parent articles are too big, this does not give a green light to keep an article with unsolvable issues. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template:Start date and age automatically updates ages...this doesn't require "meticulous yearly editing".... I'm quite baffled what would be a "fringe theory" here or what is original research. The sourcing here could be improved and there may be cleanup required, but I don't see any basis for these claims. These are hardly substantial issues, much less unsolvable ones. Reywas92Talk 05:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The delete vote above is unpersuasive. These are the mass transit rail lines in Singapore owned by the Land Transport Authority, so I don't see how it would be an indiscriminate collection of information – it's a very well defined list of the lines organized by their construction segments – or how it's possible to claim that the country's rail lines are not discussed as a group. This is very appropriate information, not "far too much information", and a need for more sourcing does not mean it's original research or should be deleted in this instance. It's an excellent subarticle of Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)#Network and infrastructure and Light Rail Transit (Singapore)#Network that provides relevant details in an organized table. Even if the indivual lines' articles also include segment history, this is a good way to present it all together, regardless of any need for cleanup. Reywas92Talk 05:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per above. The MRT and LRT articles are also very lengthy, and this information is better off on a separate page. Issues with sourcing, OR, and excessive detail can (and should) be fixed through normal editing. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 12:42, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Adedeji Tukur

[edit]
Mustafa Adedeji Tukur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Likely UPE 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:28, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TrustRadius

[edit]
TrustRadius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tech company. Page is promotional, created by account that I strongly suspect was paid. I can't find any RSs amongst the references, which all appear to me to be superficial, insincere or average brief coverage. Company is WP:ROTM. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 08:00, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 WAWFL Season

[edit]
2024 WAWFL Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Well-meaning but non-notable page on a sports competition season. Clubs in the competition have established notability, but I'm not sure that notability flows onto this page - I wouldn't have thought so? Zero RSs. Fails WP:NSPORT. Cabrils (talk) 07:54, 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 14:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hinigaran Central Colleges

[edit]
Hinigaran Central Colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organisation. No RS, no indication of possible notability. Unknown country of origin. Entirely inappropriate. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:N. Cabrils (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note I think we need more eyes on the article creator's contributions. It seems that they are quite insistent on adding this content in the wiki --Lenticel (talk) 01:04, 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.

Kashif Nazir

[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ JTtheOG (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Kashif Nazir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With the deprecation of WP:NSOLDIER, subjects must meet WP:NBIO instead, of which there is no evidence of for this three-star general. All sources are trivial mentions and reproductions of the same stories. JTtheOG (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets #1 of WP:ANYBIO, as he has Hilal-i-Imtiaz, which is the country's second highest award. Again, he is a three star general.
These are not routine achievements.
as per WP:NOTE, "The barometer of notability is whether reliable sources cover the subject in significant detail". However, in military background, not all information are available in public domain unless he is involved in a controversy. There is no way that it neglects their significance, specially when they have the second highest award of a country. There are general-officer articles which dont have deep media coverage but are retained based on achievement and rank. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 07:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lt.gen.zephyr: I stand corrected. I'll be happy to rescind my nom if you can provide a source for that. JTtheOG (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source of him getting Hilal e Imtiaz from the President of Pakistan [48] 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 08:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I’ll be rescinding first thing in the morning. Cheers, JTtheOG (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this AfD won't be existing in the morning :) 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:54, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Byrne (footballer, born 2000)

[edit]
Mark Byrne (footballer, born 2000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Article was draftified by Guliolopez, but the author moved it back to mainspace for no apparent reason. CycloneYoris talk! 06:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a passing mention. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:43, 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 Draftify‎. asilvering (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaCon

[edit]
MediaCon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure this burgeoning media/entertainment conference meets notability guidelines. WP:NEVENT states that events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. The coverage so far seems limited and all published very close to the event, and I'm having trouble finding much more than that already in the article. Since this is the inaugural event, maybe future editions will garner more coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helloo! I'm the author of the page! Just saw this message. Yep, I attended the event a couple of weeks ago. Decided to write about it since it was titled as the first of its kind in the state. From what I remember, it got decent coverage both locally and maybe even statewide, with a pretty good audience turnout. A few news channels featured it too post event. I figured it was worth creating the article now, especially since future editions might get more coverage and notability just like JTtheOG mentioned. Some of the speakers mentioned the next one is planned for December or January on a large scale. I didn’t really rushed into creating the article haha, just thought it’d be good to have it up in case there’s more to add later. Feel free to check it against the notability guidelines and decide if it’s worth keeping or nope :). Thanks! IcedKoffee (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say userfy until that happens. Article is decent quality but doesn't yet meet notability standards. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 16:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That or draftiying are good ATDs. It can give @IcedKoffee: ample time to add more references, specifically about future events, before returning the article to the mainspace. Cheers, JTtheOG (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, makes sense. I’m guessing there’ll be updates if stuff happens again soon, so I’ll keep an eye on it if it pops up in the same city. Also, do you think it’s worth just saving the article for now and maybe checking back in a couple months to see if there's recognition or no? Maybe someone else who knows more about this event or come across it will update it if I forget or can’t get to it lol. Not totally sure if that’s a good idea, just throwing it out there in case it actually makes sense haha (You guys know better!). Thoughts? @Gommeh @JTtheOG :) IcedKoffee (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still say it may be better to userfy or draftify until it meets notability standards. »Gommeh 18:05, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of princesses of Britain (before 1917)

[edit]
List of princesses of Britain (before 1917) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are several problems with this article. First, the entries after 1714 largely duplicate those in British_princess#List_of_princesses_of_the_blood_royal_since_1714 and British_princess#List_of_princesses_by_marriage_since_1714. Second, as British_princess#History notes, the title "princess" was used sparingly before 1714 and even more so before 1301. That makes some of the earlier entries anachronistic - the creating editor seems to be applying a more modern rule to members of the medieval royal family that is not supported by sources (for example Weir, Alison (1996). Britains's royal families : the complete genealogy. Internet Archive. London : Pimlico. ISBN 978-0-7126-7448-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link) which is referenced a lot). Third, a number of entries in the list are referenced to absurd sources, leading me to suspect that an LLM has been used to help generate this article, hallucinating references in the processs. For example:

Taking all that into account, I suggest that the article has no place in mainspace. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:46, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Agent 007 (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atul (company)

[edit]
Atul (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG, no significant independent coverage in reliable sources & most important article is promotional in tone. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article has good reference & coverage. Ogambo obmagom (talk) 13:17, 24 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 04:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Taylor Chapman

[edit]
John Taylor Chapman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. A city councilman (unless of a city significantly larger than Alexandria, Virginia) isn't notable. Could be redirected to Alexandria, Virginia#Government, I suppose. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:50, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Mamou-Mani

[edit]
Mathias Mamou-Mani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability for this French hedge fund manager. JTtheOG (talk) 04:14, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Lopez

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ed Lopez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsuccessful state congressional candidate. Other claim to fame is being Vice-Chairman of a libertarian group within the Republican Party, which doesn't seem enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN either. Lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Leonstojka (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The only two sources that deal at length with him are articles in the Providence Phoenix, an alternative weekly newspaper. There is also a bio, but that's from the North American Foundation for the University of Durham, of which he is an alumnus. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "'Notability' is not synonymous with 'fame'. Subject has contributed to discourse on the US presidential election process, advocacy for the 'national popular vote' relative to the electoral college: covered on CSPAN and PBS - both US national news sources. Not a "congressional candidate" but a candidate for state house, regardless: elected to the Greenwich, Connecticut legislature, which seems a notable body, based on article. Online search shows: continues to work nationally with at least three organizations: american security fund, hispanic leadership fund, and american unity political action commmittee. There is a bio on the hispanic leadership site. The 'delete' would be premature, article needs new citations to show career progression.--Grant18650602 (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. He is active in various political organizations, but I don't believe that matters, otherwise every political junkie and party activist in the United States would meet the threshold. You note he was elected to the legislature of Greenwich, Connecticut: I do not agree this establishes notability. Per WP:NPOL, he has not held a state-wide office and he is not a major local figure who has received significant press coverage. That leaves WP:GNG, and there is not enough discussion of him in reliable, secondary sources to qualify on this metric either. Leonstojka (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Subject doesn't fit the description of 'political junkie': works on notable national issues, visibly participates in these, covered by national media. On the municipal legislature: he was an elected official; subject's overall participation in public service is hued by these roles. Career progression seems important per WP:NPOL: he meets a general notability in the political space, verifiable bio on one of the three national organizations he works with since last article update, that I could find, and was an active participant in the presidential election discourse in 2016 with relevance (the libertarian party played a substantive role in 2016 and subject led a national republican effort across parties). This article would likely be recreated: the ebb and flow of politics and missing updates to article are not a robust basis to delete if subject continues to develop a substantive career. Grant18650602 (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lopez Reyes continues to write and publish on music subjects, podcasting; an online search shows he’s active politically but also in writing and podcasting on the music, entertainment side. Agreed small updates could improve article.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The music writing and podcasting are very unlikely to make him notable though, unless you could demonstrate the writing is impactful enough to meet WP:JOURNALIST, or his podcasting work has generated significant commentary in secondary sources. If the evidence exists, a major edit should be conducted immediately. Leonstojka (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reyes is still active nationally, Libertarians for National Popular Vote features him on their board with Gary Johnson and Lincoln Chafee and it seems the campaign to shift the election process to a popular vote is ongoing. His bio is available in more than one place. Searching his name as "Ed Lopez" vs "Ed Lopez-Reyes" will make a difference and the name variation is discussed in the article. Some of the information discussed in the comments above is in the article under the Notes section, but that would all fit fine in the main body. This article just needs some revision and updates, I also think it will be recreated anyway if deleted.--1975tampabayray (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Low-level politico and failed candidate. The amount of name-dropping in the article, particularly on the Young Conservatives for Freedom to Marry (a sub-group of Freedom to Marry), is a clear effort to mask a lack of notability. There are also a lot of weasel words like "participated," meant to further mask this. This individual and their blogging do not meet the criteria to have a stand alone article.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing notability for an encylopedic entry. Following comments by Mpen320. His article reads like a promotion for a candidate. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. But an online search doesn't show he is a candidate for an office at the moment; it shows after losing one campaign he continued to serve in a municipal elective office but also continued to take on national political roles. I'm not seeing the promotion of a candidacy.--Grant18650602 (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:03, 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repast (funeral)

[edit]
Repast (funeral) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established with significant sources: 1 is just a dictionary definition, 2 does not appear to use the term [50], 3 is not a reliable source, 4 only uses it once in passing, 5 only uses it once in passing, 6 appears to be a ref-bomb. Reywas92Talk 04:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article could use some work, but the subject is notable in that it meets WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY criteria. ZachH007 (talk) 18:13, 24 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 03:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belden Tri-State Building Materials

[edit]
Belden Tri-State Building Materials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established with substantive independent sources. Cites 1, 2 3, and 5 are the company's own website, 4 is a dead link but seems to be ref-bomb type irrelevant, 6 is also dead (some AI page?), 7 is a passing mention, 8 and 9 are both dead but likely only passing, 10 is passing irrelevance, and 11 is irrevant ref-bomb Reywas92Talk 03:46, 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 03:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatinska Street

[edit]
Dalmatinska Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No particular indication of notability for this Sarajevo street. The article, which is AI-generated, really only depends on one primary source, while the other two sources don't seem to mention the street at all. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 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 03:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha Ajith

[edit]
Sneha Ajith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actress/ dancer. Has acted in some blink and you miss roles in some movies. Does not have any references from notable sources and this page may be a part of a PR campaign to get some visibility. Jupitus Smart 02:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject - Sneha Ajith, has a notable role in movies like "Kshnama", "It happened that night" and "Anakku Enthinte Keda" where she is credited as one of the lead roles, references from IMBD and Times of India are linked below in the article which are credible sources. This article is not part of a PR campaign but just an effort tot document an upcoming actress in the Malayalam industry. The roles from above movies are not just blink and miss as she plays a lead role and this proves she is not just any background actress. Suggestions and sources that are verifiable are welcome to be included for strengthening and improving the article in question. Vshnprdp (talk) 11:56, 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 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, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Franca Lehara Street

[edit]
Franca Lehara Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any particular indication of notability for this street in Sarajevo. Sources are either from government sites or fairly routine coverage of public works or buildings located on the street. JTtheOG (talk) 00:30, 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 12:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humanity (journal)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Humanity (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any coverage of this journal in independent secondary sources, only primary ones. Fails WP:NJOURNAL. ApexParagon (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The remarks from WP:NJOURNALS specifically says Note that there is no consensus in the broader community for this being a suitable notability criteria. Moritoriko (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is my first time dipping my toes in this area of notability but when I tried looking for it under SCImago it showed no data and a semi-random sampling of articles from the journal turned up what I think are relatively low citation numbers including one that had 3. Moritoriko (talk) 06:57, 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. Reading Whoisjohngalt's "that seems reasonable" as a retraction of the keep !vote, we have no opposition to deletion. asilvering (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modular agile transit

[edit]
Modular agile transit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The lead says "While not yet a standardized system, MAT represents an emerging idea in transportation research to address challenges". I'm not sure that an evolving, conceptual notion meets WP Notability requirements. The article reads like ad brochure for a startup ... lots of bullet points. If there is no concrete product; and if there is no international standard ... what is there? A research project? Not sure that qualifies as encyclopedic.

There are several sources listed at bottom of article, but most are not _about_ the "Modular agile transit" ... most of the sources simply support individual facts stated in the article (but the sources do not mention the M.A.T.). Noleander (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Honestly surprised to see such a poor article from such a long-time editor. Cite 1 has the wrong DOI# but should link to [58], which is a computer model about modular vehicles but is not about "agile" transit or an actual system. 2 is some totally irrelevant software source, 3 is about carsharing not transit, 4 seems relevant but is also just a model, 5 has a title that's merely about electric buses but the DOI link goes to something else, 6 seems relevant but is also just a computer model and does not use "agile", 7 is a good book but irrelevant, and 8 is also irrelevant. So the article is a lot of fluff, unsourced statements, and ref-bomb material. What is going on here? Like I understand what the article's getting at, but since it's just a research concept I agree with nom that this reads as a student article rather than something that should have a standalone page. Reywas92Talk 02:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The faulty citations are characteristic of LLM output. With that in mind, I have to wonder if the rest of the article is LLM-generated as well. Omphalographer (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was thinking the same for this author's Repast (funeral), which I also AFDed. Reywas92Talk 14:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – As the article’s primary author, I appreciate the feedback in this AfD and have significantly revised the article to address the raised concerns. The original version was overly complex and included some irrelevant sources, which I acknowledge made it read like a promotional piece. I have rewritten it into a concise Start-class article, focusing only on the core concept of modular transit supported by two peer-reviewed sources directly discussing the topic. These sources establish notability per WP:GNG by providing significant coverage of modular transit systems in reputable journals (Transportation Research Parts C and A). I've removed unsourced claims, bullet points, and promotional language to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:MOS and clarified that MAT is a research concept, not a product, addressing concerns about its "evolving notion" status. While not a deployed system, the concept’s coverage in academic literature makes it encyclopedic, similar to other research-stage transport concepts like Hyperloop. I'm open to further suggestions for improvement. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 16:09, 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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia · View on Wikipedia

Developed by Nelliwinne