Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 December 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< December 01	December 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war

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

This article appears to be a content fork. The material presented here is already fully covered in existing articles:

Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks

Gaza war hostage crisis

Gaza war hostage crisis#Treatment_of_hostages

The article does not present substantial new, independently notable information. Instead, it basically duplicates content that is already included in those pages, or that can be appropriately added to them alone, meaning it has issues meeting WP:NOTCONTENT, WP:UNDUE. Not only that but it seems to me to more specifically be a WP:POVFORK, functioning as a separate page for material that fits naturally within other, well-established articles, apparently for the purpose of emphasis. The presentation of the material as-is also does not, imo, adhere to WP:NPOV.

Because the article represents a redundant and non-notable fork, and because its content is more appropriately handled within the existing articles listed above, the article does not meet WP:GNG and I believe deletion is appropriate. Any verifiable, neutrally presented, policy-compliant information can of course be merged into the relevant parent articles where appropriate. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because of off-wiki encouragement or social networks, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Israel, and Palestine. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There isn't much to show a fork is needed, testimonies are fine, but the majority of the article now is these testimonies. We can merge relevant content into the articles as shown. Might be too soon as this hasn't been studied much, but can be adequately explained in other articles. A testimonial section really only serves to shame the victims, something that can be briefly described in other articles without going into needless details. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clear content fork Laura240406 (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary fork of content already covered in existing articles - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly a topic on its own. Anyone can see, that this topic needs an article of its own, as the issue it important enough, notable enough, as happens in many other articles on Wikipedia, where a segment of one article becomes an article on its own. That without stating the obvious, that the sexual abuse, doesn't truly fall under any of the topic names of the other articles. ShoBDin (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is not a POV fork under WP:CFORK (where exactly is the POV here?). The two topics are not the same subject:

Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks deals with crimes committed during the attack itself (one day: October 7, 2023)
Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war concerns abuse that occurred during months of captivity, which is a separate phase of the conflict, with different circumstances, timelines (October 8 2023 – October 2025), sources, and findings.

Wikipedia already treats the October 7 attacks and the Gaza war as distinct events (the latter initiated by the first), and each has its own standalone article. It is entirely consistent for the sexual-violence coverage to be divided the same way. A POV fork occurs when content is split to promote a particular viewpoint, but here, the split follows event boundaries and chronology, not POV. These are two distinct areas of documented abuse, even if the perpetrating groups are the same (Hamas/PIJ and so on, though on October 7 some of the sexual violence was carried out by civilian Gazan residents apparently). BlookyNapsta (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A content fork exists when a new article is created on a topic that is already handled, or can readily be handled, within existing articles. This is explicitly covered under WP:CFORK. In this case, every substantive point in the article is already covered or can be covered in established articles, as I've already shown in my nomination. RS treat sexual and gender-based abuse of hostages as part of the Gaza hostage crisis and sexual violence that began on October 7 and was then "ongoing", as per the UN reports. The October 7 article does not only cover events of that specific day for this reason, and imo it shouldn't. (We've had extensive discussions about this on the talk page for that article.)

If your point is that the Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks article is too narrow in title or scope, the correct venue is a move request (to change the title) or a discussion on that article's talk page about its structure and framing.

Re: Wikipedia already treats the October 7 attacks and the Gaza war as distinct events (the latter initiated by the first), and each has its own standalone article. We already have an article specifically devoted to the hostages and their treatment during the Gaza war, where the content also naturally fits, and which along with the other article also already contains much of the content duplicated here. It is Gaza hostage crisis, and Gaza_war_hostage_crisis#Treatment_of_hostages. This is why I said it appears to be a WP:POVFORK, as it was made with duplicated materials from already existing articles and with a subject that fits naturally within other, well-established articles, apparently for the purpose of emphasis. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. I believe it does not meet WP:NPOV, also as this has been covered in other articles, it would be a content fork. Equine-man (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Deleting this is an attempt to censor the horrific sexual violence committed by Hamas. You cannot just lump this together with the sexual violence of the October 7 massacre because they are two different topics. SteelersDiclonious (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like a content fork. Skycloud86 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We're seeing one of those articles that should both be an independent article and a section in another article. I'm seeing significant coverage from 2023 to 2025, meaning this is independently notable. I also think it would serve our readers better if we separated any sexual violence committed on the day of the attack versus the long captivity afterwards into different articles, as these are two different events. Bremps... 22:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nomination, this is a clear WP:POVFORK. TarnishedPath^talk 04:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it a *POV* fork in your opinion? BlookyNapsta (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is big enough and notable enough and is not really covered by any of the other topics mentioned. Nehushtani (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It definitely seems notable enough on its own - there are plenty of sources and the content is big enough to not be a stub (and big enough that giving it the amount of depth that Wikipedia could give it would make it too big to fit comfortably in the Gaza war hostage crisis section on treatment of hostages). I also can't say that I'm convinced by the argument that the material is already covered in the Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks - I feel like the content in the "In captivity in Gaza" sub-section of the "Alleged acts by location" sub-section fits somewhat awkwardly there. The split into a separate article seems justified. NHCLS (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This material is already covered in the other articles mentioned which makes it a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. It becomes a problem and an unacceptable content fork when there are multiple articles with the same information. Dualpendel (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sexual violence committed against Israeli hostages is a distinct, well-documented subject that cannot be incorporated into another article without obscuring its scope, patterns, and gendered nature. Merging would collapse a unique set of facts into broader events, erasing critical information and contradicting established principles for documenting sexual and gender-based violence as a topic that requires independent analysis. Furthermore, sexual violence in a hostage situation is fundamentally different from sexual violence in a massacre context: these are distinct cases, each shaped by its own conditions of coercion, control, and abuse of power. Treating them as interchangeable diminishes the accuracy and integrity of the record. שלומית ליר (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an LLM-generated response as it is not replying to what the AfD is about. We already have two pages that contain the information that was recently spun out into this POV fork and that are about this very subject, yet the response you have posted here is replying to an AfD for a long-established page with unique content that has no other page where it can fit without erasure.

Why do we need to have a third page on this subject when we already have a long-established sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis page containing this content, and another one that is specifically devoted to the hostages which already includes their testimonies of sexual violence?

Please respond to the actual case instead of the one that was responded to here. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, I find these cases unique and deserving of an article of their own. When writing about those who undergo sexual violence, the issue of silencing is often present; the cost of such silencing is the repetition of offenses and a weakening of victims’ trust in the ability of public institutions to acknowledge and address their experiences.

Having a separate article ensures that these events are documented with the depth, clarity, and visibility they require. שלומית ליר (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE but packaged in ai slop User:Easternsahara_{review this} 23:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Middle East. TarnishedPath^talk 10:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surprised that this article has been nominated for deletion, as it clearly does not warrant such an extreme action. As observed above by several commenters, the sexual violence against hostages is a distinct and quite serious subject that is amply sources and certainly does not fit the criteria of a POV fork. Removing it would fail to do justice to the subject matter, and it would further enhance Wikipedia's growing reputation for non-neutrality and hostility to Israel. Coretheapple (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: shud be "amply sourced." Apologize for misspelling. Coretheapple (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how this is a content fork. This subject matter is significant and noteworthy enough to merit its own article, as it has been covered by many outlets. Sexual abuse of the hostages also should not be generalized as just "treatment of hostages" or merged into the "hostage crisis" - doing so would (unintentionally, I presume the nom was in good faith) diminish the impact of the abuse. TheInevitables (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BELONG and WP:ITSNOTABLE User:Easternsahara_{review this} 23:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is quite obviously a content fork made by an editor for the purpose of emphasizing the topic despite the fact that we already have two pages wholly devoted to it, one for sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis since October 7, and one for the hostages and their treatment in captivity which includes the same content. This same editor keeps making what appear to be LLM-generated pages duplicating content to emphasize topics that already have pages covering them. No attempt has been made to argue for why we need a third separate page on the same topic grounded in any policy.

The only attempt at a policy argument I've seen, aside from saying that it shows "bias against Israel" to delete a clear content fork made for POV purposes, is that the general article we have on the sexual violence has a title that implies an overly narrow scope. Yet we already have the same content included on that page, and we do so because the sexual violence against hostages is always covered in the main RS we have on it as part of the sexual violence that began on October 7. Look at the UN, Human Rights and journalistic reports on it and they all cover it in this context.

However, if this is the main problem, as Smallangryplanet said the proper venue for that is an RM to change the title to something like "Sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis since October 7". Moreover, we already have a page devoted to the hostages and their treatment in captivity specifically which already includes the testimonies and the sexual violence. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. It's a more specific look into what you provided, so not really a true fork imo. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 19:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bremps. We can have both, or even three, which are distinct crimes. Also, let's not give our critics any more to grind. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough evidence and sources for this page. Meets WP:GNG and has been widely covered in the press. Agnieszka653 (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide better arguments than WP:ITSNOTABLE User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: A WP:POVFORK which does not pass WP:GNG. The article is not neutral whatsoever and is clearly written with a narrative in mind. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a clear cut POVFORK that brings nothing new to Wikipedia. The subject has been already covered elsewhere. Lorstaking (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per issue of notability, WP:POVFORK and most importantly WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The "victims" and "perpetuators" are not public figures. Zalaraz (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As already said this is clearly a topic on its own. Anyone can see, that this topic needs an article of its own, as the issue it important enough, notable enough, as happens in many other articles on Wikipedia, where a segment of one article becomes an article on its own. That without stating the obvious, that the sexual abuse, doesn't truly fall under any of the topic names of the other articles also this is not a POV fork under WP:CFORK (where exactly is the POV here?). The two topics are not the same subject:

Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks deals with crimes committed during the attack itself (one day: October 7, 2023)

Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war concerns abuse that occurred during months of captivity, which is a separate phase of the conflict, with different circumstances, timelines (October 8 2023 – October 2025), sources, and findings. Wikitalovin1 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no need to create another article on the same subject. The article is a POVFORK of Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks. Orientls (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : per @TheInevitables and @NHCLS Rafi Chazon (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A procedural note for participants and the closer: the Keep !vote by @Wikitalovin1 is copy-pasted from @ShoBDin and @BlookyNapsta rather than an independent contribution.

Duplication examples

:The first part is identical to ShoBDin's comment:

Wikitalovin1:

...clearly a topic on its own. Anyone can see, that this topic needs an article of its own, as the issue it important enough, notable enough, as happens in many other articles on Wikipedia, where a segment of one article becomes an article on its own. That without stating the obvious, that the sexual abuse, doesn't truly fall under any of the topic names of the other articles.

ShoBDin:

... clearly a topic on its own. Anyone can see, that this topic needs an article of its own, as the issue it important enough, notable enough, as happens in many other articles on Wikipedia, where a segment of one article becomes an article on its own. That without stating the obvious, that the sexual abuse, doesn't truly fall under any of the topic names of the other articles.

then:

Wikitalovin1:

...this is not a POV fork under WP:CFORK (where exactly is the POV here?). The two topics are not the same subject: Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks deals with crimes committed during the attack itself (one day: October 7, 2023) Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war concerns abuse that occurred during months of captivity, which is a separate phase of the conflict, with different circumstances, timelines (October 8 2023 – October 2025), sources, and findings.

BlookyNapsta:

...This is not a POV fork under WP:CFORK (where exactly is the POV here?). The two topics are not the same subject: Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks deals with crimes committed during the attack itself (one day: October 7, 2023) Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war concerns abuse that occurred during months of captivity, which is a separate phase of the conflict, with different circumstances, timelines (October 8 2023 – October 2025), sources, and findings.

The only words that appear to be this editor's own are Keep: As already said this is... and "...also...." Per WP:NOTVOTE, !votes in formal discussions should be representative of individual views rather than simply an agreement with what has already been said, or indeed the text that has already been written. IMO, Wikitalovin1's comment should be discounted as a derivative restatement of existing arguments, not counted as a separate Keep !vote itself. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact i started my comment with alredy said Wikitalovin1 (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't add any clear indication you were quoting, and you combined content from two separate comments in a way that could be taken to mean you were presenting it as your own. Please have a look at WP:DELAFD (and/or WP:REPEAT) - this is a discussion, not a counted vote, so repeating others' arguments (even or especially if you do not say you are quoting them) verbatim is not advised. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest collapsing your argumentation here, as it lengthy, insubstantive and interrupts the flow of discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, thought I had. Apologies. Smallangryplanet (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ynet and the Jerusalem Post should not be used by this article. These have a vested interested in creating propaganda for Israel. this bbc article which the article cites is the BBC saying that the Israeli 'experts' are saying that it occured, not BBC themselves. These 'experts' hold the WP:FRINGE belief that October 7 was a genocide, so they should not be paid. Thoes cited in the BBC report: Dinah Project, Ruth Halperin-Kaddar, Sharon Zagagi-Pinhas, and Nava Ben-Or are not independent from this topic. this middle east eye and the cnn report should be removed per WP:SYNTH, they do not mention sexual assault or violence. this apnews article is debunked (pbs ei (commentary on nyt)) so it should not be used for the same reason we don't include old studies that say cigarettes are good for you or that asbestos is safe for household use, WP:OUTDATED. Similarly, I think most of these articles can be disregarded because they have been exposed for lying since they were published before the pbs article (22 may 2024). Then, i think the remaining ones (2-3 citations actually on the topic) are based on the outdated reports, and mention the topic in passing, thus it does not meet WP:GNG User:Easternsahara_{review this} 23:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see both sides, but after carefully reviewing the content, sourcing and arguments, I believe a deletion is in order. I shall explain why. The new page was copied vebatim from the section devoted to the subject on the main page. The amount of content there falls well short of justifying a standalone page.

This goes to the point of distinctiveness and notability cited by multiple editors. I believe this misunderstands the sourcing. There is news coverage of the now four hostages and their testimonies. However, the substantive, best quality secondary sourcing such as the United Nations and other reports, all uniformly present sexual violence against hostages as part of the broader pattern of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) that began on October 7 and continued afterward. The page itself relies on these reports. We ought to follow this model of presentation as per WP:RS and WP:V. Moreover, separating the topic from that broader pattern dilutes its significance by erroneously framing it as an separate, distinct phenomenon rather than an integral part and extension of said pattern.

Even if independent notability had been established, this alone does not require or justify a standalone page, and declining to create one does not diminish the gravity of the subject. Rather the opposite, as I explained. This case reflects exactly what is recommended in WP:NOPAGE, which notes that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page.

My final concern is that the page by its design consists largely on repeating individual testimonies from news reports. These are already covered proportionately, succinctly, and with proper context in the existing parent article, and as presented here raise issues of WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and WP:VL. I agree with @Oaktree b who expressed worry about a page that by its topic-design is set to function as a mere repository of individual sexual violence testimonies quoted at great length, which also runs against WP:OVERQUOTING.

I do, however, believe the parent article should be renamed. I support Sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis since October 7. This matches how we title the equivalent page concerning SGBV against Palestinians, where we specify both the victim group and the time period: Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Gaza war. This should have been done long ago, and renders moot the claim that the main page is too narrow in scope. Lf8u2 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article is very important in terms of raising the awareness of these terrible actions by Hamas. The sources are very clear about the facts, which are also very different from the October 7th story. The Israeli hostages were kept in captivity - some of them for more than two years - and the conditions and the atmosphere changed completely in a way that makes maintaining a separate article a very justifiable decision. LidDahl (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This argument boils down to WP:BELONG. It does not counter the arguments about WP:NOPAGE but only says that the page should exist because Hamas is bad. That is not based on policy. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 23:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or the very least merge the Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war article with the Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks page and then renamed the article as “Sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis during the Gaza war”. Plus, I agree with some of the comments here, stating that the article is basically content fork. Qhairun (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks - I'm persuaded by Lf8u2's comment above. I support Qhairun's proposed title for the article though: "Sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis during the Gaza war". Samuelshraga (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, and this also goes to @Qhairun, this CFORK was copied directly from the already existing section on the main page, so there is no need to merge. There is nothing new here. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I say merge, what I'm getting at is that the title of the target page should be changed to reflect the inclusion of this content. I don't know if/how it's possible to find consensus to move a page's title in the AfD discussion of a separate page, but that's what I wanted to convey. If however the main page remains as Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks, then my comment should be taken as an argument for (second choice) keep, and the material shouldn't be duplicated on the other page. I think we do better with a single page for this material though, hence my !vote. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a separate page to a different title is outside of the scope of AfD Katzrockso (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a POV fork, because the split is not based on a point of view but on facts. Sexual violence committed on the day of the attack and sexual violence committed during captivity are two different things, documented by different sources and investigated differently. Merging into a single article would hurt the subject and create confusion, which would likely harm neutrality rather than improve it. Keeping the topics separate allows a more balanced, proportional, and accurate presentation, in line with WP:NPOV and with the way reliable sources themselves present the material. Eliezer1987 (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a LLM-generated response, and it does not engage with the content of the AfD. The user @Eliezer1987 has stated that they use LLMs for their edits in the past after other editors took notice of it. So you end up with a confused mangle of claims that have nothing to do with this AfD:

"This is not a POV fork, because the split is not based on a point of view but on facts." This is not what a POV Fork is, and the section the fork was copied directly from has the exact same RS-basis as it was a copy.

"documented by different sources and investigated differently" They are in fact documented by the exact same sources and investigated in the same way (first-hand testimonies), in the most comprehensive reports we have, which state explicitly that reliance on such testimonies is primary given the lack of physical evidence for various reasons (mistakes made by first responders, mismanagement, etc.).

"Merging into a single article would hurt the subject and create confusion, which would likely harm neutrality rather than improve it", this is not about a merger. The content for this CFORK was copied verbatim from the already existing page, and rather than creating confusion, it does precisely the opposite by placing it in context.

"Keeping the topics separate allows a more balanced, proportional, and accurate presentation, in line with WP:NPOV and with the way reliable sources themselves present the material." This is simply inaccurate as the RS do not present the material in this way at all, and the question of balance, proportionality and accuracy are entirely irrelevant as the content of the page was copied verbatim from the already existing section.

This is why I said to another editor who also appears to have used a LLM-generator to avoid doing so especially for AfDs because you end up generating responses that have no bearing on the actual content of the case. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wasn't written by LLM!! and the claim that it was is not only insulting, but also contributes nothing to the discussion. The fact that I mentioned previously that I used LLM does not mean that this is what was done here and even the opposite. Eliezer1987 (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't read like LLM-generated text to me, did you use a tool on it that made you come to that conclusion? Nor is the argument confused, even though I disagree about the benefits of keeping the topic separate. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I used multiple LLM-checkers. Grammarly says 53% AI, ZeroGPT 100%, Scribrr 51%. However as they say they didn't use an LLM, I'll accept that. I still disagree regarding the quality of the arguments for reasons mentioned. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So we're now taking up space on an AfD page openly speculating that a user is utilizing artificial intelligence to craft their responses? And flinging some essay at them as if it is policy? I really wish editors would confine themselves to the merits and not clog AfD pages with this kind of thing. I request that you hat this. Thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As these are completely different topics. There is no POV fork. Each one is in a different category, one speaks of the day of the attacks, the other speaks of the time the hostages were in captivity. The relation between the two is cause and consequence, but again, each one is notable for itself. It like saying all Wikipedia articles are POV fork of The Big Bang. Denisaptr (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just blatantly false, none of the 'victims' whose claims are listed here have Wikipedia articles of their own and do not have enough coverage to pass notability. This is just talking about WP:GNG, not the more restrictive WP:NEVENT User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks so editors can selectively merge any relevant content to that page with the possibility for a page move, per WP:NOPAGE. The issue here is that this topic is effectively a list of specific survivor testimonies of hostages captured during the 7 October attacks. This is obviously currently better covered in the greater context of the October 7 attacks and further coverage of the evolution of sexual violence during the conflict, which is already covered at the aforementioned page. Hostages were taken as a result of the 7 October attacks, so it makes sense to cover all of this at the same page rather than arbitrarily split based on whether the sexual violence took place on 7 October or later - the source material does not distinguish these categories explicitly. As other editors have noted, this article duplicates much of the material at Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks#In captivity in Gaza, so the really the redirect should be targeted there.

I would probably support a move to change the destination pages article title to expand its scope, but that is not within the scope of this AfD.

If the material at the page becomes burdensome or further information emerges, the topic may be spunout again (something I believe will likely occur eventually) Katzrockso (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Staff of the Krushevo Revolutionary Region

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

Fails notability. The creator of the article was also blocked as a sockpuppet. StephenMacky1 (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incoherent with no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Kruševo Republic. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kruševo Republic. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this topic is not so significant. Jingiby (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing I find is in EduRank and FanFix, neither of which is a RS. The one source used isn't online, so I can't say how good it is, but one source isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Militsiya of the Kruševo Republic

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

Fails notability entirely. Has been unsourced for a while now. I could not find anything to salvage the article in another language version of Wikipedia either. StephenMacky1 (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Police, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if proper sourcing appears, merge selectively into Kruševo Republic.
Delete or merge to Kruševo Republic. The Macedonian verson of the page does seem to have a couple of sources, but I wouldn't blame anyone for deleting this. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has two cited sources, which are not enough to establish notability. Hristo Silyanov's source only mentions it in passing. StephenMacky1 (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole article is bla-bla. Jingiby (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rug Burn (channel)

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

Lack of significant coverage. Go D. Usopp (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Internet, and United States of America. Go D. Usopp (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find other coverage about the channel except its launch, covered in the article, and nothing about it shutting down. If it were notable, you'd think there would be coverage about its end of operation. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People's Democratic Movement (Guyana)

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

Not notable parties that never won a seat, got more than 1% of the vote, or participated in more than one election. Yilku1 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yilku1 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Small party with no indication of notability, based on the small vote count the party received. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Croton sections

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

Unreferenced list. This content might be better covered at Croton (plant) anyway per WP:NOPAGE. A merge there could be an appropriate WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Croton#Taxonomy not sure why this is separate, Katzrockso (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Croton (plant)#Taxonomy. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Draftify if someone particularly wants to work on this). There's nothing sourced here, so nothing can reasonably be merged. If someone does manage to do so, it could probably be combined with List of Croton species. This is still probably too detailed for the main page though. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a replication of the formal taxonomy structure which is used to catalogue species of Croton. I doubt there's anything in there that isn't already found in the sources used at the Croton article. It wouldn't be too big for that article, and we can always reformat it to take up less space. That said I like the idea of combining the lists. One could actually catalogue the species under the taxonomy structure which would make a superior article. It of course would require a lot of work and sourcing to do. 4meter4 (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Progressive Party

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

Fails GNG. Results were muddy, but filtering out all of the results pertaining to Africa left none relating to this PPP. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 22:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there are sources, they're buried in search results pertaining to a party of the same name in Guyana. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This party is in no way notable, I hope this is not an example of COI Atriskofmistake (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appeared as non notable party. M S T L (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hóquei Clube de Sintra

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG / WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. 4meter4 (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Eastmain has added two sources, one of them inline. Ping me if we can get at least two more. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerway

AfDs for this article:

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

I cannot find evidence of this website receiving any significant coverage from independent sources after searching for them, thus the topic does not pass WP:WEB. Some sources in the article discuss a recent merging of football websites that is related to this one, but they do not give significant coverage to the website itself or provide evidence of its notability. The other sources are simply a website that list domains, and a primary source. TheInevitables (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Websites. TheInevitables (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Soccerway is used as a valid source. Despite the downgrade, it would be strange to delete something so widely used in the project. Svartner (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD isn't about whether Soccerway is a reliable source, it's about whether there's significant coverage that would indicate the website is notable enough to have an article. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that would be quite inconsistent, that's the point. Svartner (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see how. Again, reliability isn't the same as notability. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous AFD. Giant Snowman 20:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad End Theater

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

I had a fairly lengthy debate about the notability of this article in its talk page and DYK nomination page, but I am now fully convinced that it doesn't pass WP:GNG. The only obvious reliable, significant (just barely) coverage is the PC Gamer source, with others being either, primary, unreliable, trivial/directories or Valnet. Final Weapon isn't likely a reliable website. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the arguments. Self-promoting Wiki page. The game is not "notable" in a broad sense of Wikipedia standards. This is a case of WP:NOTJUSTYET Silvymaro (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Self-promoting"? I have no relation to the developer and I assume Yoblyblob doesn't either. Sophocrat (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I doubt this passes WP:THREE. Valnet sources don't count towards notability, and one of the other sources in the reception section (#7) is considered unreliable. Take both of those sources out, and you only have two sources remaining in the reception section. To me that's not necessarily enough for a standalone article. The Game Developer source is WP:PRIMARY so it also doesn't count towards notability. Gommeh 📖 🎮 15:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Valnet sources do not count towards notability? I have never heard this Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VALNET, it is a longstanding consensus amongst editors due to their heavy amount of content farming in that realm. An RfC found ScreenRant (another Valnet site) "marginally reliable" meaning that it is very lackluster as far as proving something is notable and usually should be avoided unless necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have investigated this game in detail and believe it has received just enough coverage for an article. On Zxcvbnm's advice I have intended to expand the Reception section, though I haven't done so due to real life responsibilities (I will be free in a month). @Gommeh: What do you think of these three sources?

Source assessment table prepared by User:The Sophocrat
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
PC Gamer review	Magazine has no relation to developer.	Listed as reliable for this area at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources.	5 paragraphs about the game.	✔ Yes
Wellesley College thesis (plain text link)	Author has no relation to developer.	Written for the author's Honors in Media Arts and Sciences. It was advised by 4 thesis advisers (qualified people from the college).	630-word chapter discussing the game.	✔ Yes
FM4 review (in German)	Company and author have no relation to developer.	The review author studied Journalism and Media Management and seems to have experience in journalism. The site is used plenty at the German Wikipedia and dozens of times at enwiki.	Review is entirely about the video game.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

These other sources are only partially useful towards GNG, but they support the stronger sources:

Source assessment table prepared by User:The Sophocrat
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Page from Turkish thesis (in Turkish)	Author has no relation to developer.	From Hacettepe University. Thesis was supervised by doctor Elif Varol Ergen, who seems to be a recognized specialist in the field (eg by this art magazine article) (as preferred by WP:THESIS [If possible, use theses that have been [...] supervised by recognized specialists in the field]).	~ It only dedicates a page to the game. It also dedicates a subchapter to another of the developer's games, but I digress.	~ Partial
Best PC Games With LGBTQ+ Themes, and The Best Visual Novels That Aren't Anime list articles by TheGamer	Company and author have no relation to developer.	WP:VG/RS states about TheGamer that "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable. Several editorial staff have bylines highlighting their experience working with other reputable video game media outlets". The author of this particular article has a degree in Art and Game Design.	~ Both articles talk little about the video game. For what it's worth, the first one states "The developer, NomnomNami, is well known for bringing video game stories centered around the LGBTQ+ community, and Bad End Theater puts a unique twist on lesbian representation in games." Again per WP:VG/RS, "Opinions presented in editorials, reviews, or list entries that have significant coverage may be used sparingly to augment reception where notability has been established by stronger sources."	~ Partial
Best Visual Novels On Steam and The Best Visual Novels For Beginners list articles by GameRant	Website has no relation to developer.	~ WP:VALNET calls it situational, noting that "Topics of low potential for controversy such as general pop culture topics or game information are allowable areas.". Like TheGamer, it "may be used sparingly to augment reception where notability has been established by stronger sources.".	~ Both articles talk little about the video game, though they do give a bit of interpretation (such as "Bad End Theater oozes visual style, setting itself apart from the usual visual novel offerings" in the first one and "[Bad End Theater] is still a good place for beginners to get a feel for what an excellent and engaging visual novel should be like" in the second one).	~ Partial
Final Weapon review	Magazine has no relation to developer.	~ Was recently discussed at the video game reliable sources noticeboard and found to be situational at best. Their top staff have qualifications and/or significant experience, but most of the rest don't. A shame given the article's thoroughness.	Review discusses the video game in length.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

There's a couple more potentially-useful reviews (eg this French one) but I haven't finished verifying their reliability.

As I stated at the DYK nomination, I do believe this subject is notable and evidently an article can be written about it—it's just a bit niche. We have three sources counting towards GNG and some more that are partially useful in demonstrating notability, such as the Turkish thesis stating the game "is known for its complex plots" and TheGamer calling the developer "well known for bringing video game stories centered around the LGBTQ+ community". And per WP:DYKCITE, The use of multiple sources is generally preferred, though more leeway may be given for more obscure topics. Sophocrat (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine. If you have doubts I would consider taking them to WT:VG/S. I'm only really familiar with PC Gamer and (to a lesser extent) Final Weapon so I can guarantee those, at least, are reliable. Gommeh 📖 🎮 05:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the thesis counts towards GNG. Per WP:THESIS, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. This does not appear to have had such influence. The 2nd table marks ones as partial when they are clearly a "no" due to WP:VALNET. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have a doubt regarding WP:THESIS. It states If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature, supervised by recognized specialists in the field, or reviewed by independent parties (emphasis mine) which implies that you could use theses that don't fulfill any of those criteria (so an uncited, unreviewed thesis). However, it then states in the same paragraph that Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence (emphasis mine) as you noted. That much-higher requirement seems to contradict the relatively lax guideline I first cited. Anyhow, I believe the fact that the thesis I cited was supervised by a recognized specialist in the field gives it credence for this purpose. Sophocrat (talk) (from ~2025-36952-13 (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]

The thesis appears to be an undergraduate thesis, which would clearly not be reliable under WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Wellesley doesn't offer graduate programs. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on the PC Gamer and ORF FM4 articles, which are solid. The Final Weapon review is pretty thorough, but it's unclear who it's by. I wouldn't count the dissertations or lists towards notability. The page doesn't read as overly promotional to me. Adam Sampson (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: The first source table is just about enough, the marginal sources in the second one help notability. Not a ton of coverage, but some things found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Algeria-related articles

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

I started a discussion at WP:VPI#Indexes of country-related articles, but with little participation. We have 148 pages in Category:Indexes of topics by country, but some are redirects or subtopics. I have picked (relatively randomly) the largest countries for this AfD to keep it manageable, and because not all criticisms may be equally valid for really small countries with a limited number of articles.

The issue is that these lists are permanently, woefully incomplete, in a random way. Maintaining such lists is nearly impossible: a complete list would duplicate the category tree for that country, while a short, curated list duplicates the outlines which exist for many of these. As it stands, these indexes serve no real purpose.

For example, the alphabetically first one, Algeria: the list includes Algeria at the 2004 Summer Olympics but not the other years. Why? It contains 10 "List of..." pages, but this is only a small fraction of such lists in Category:Algeria-related lists and its subcats.

The same issues happen with all the below country lists. Either deletion, redirection to an outline, or redirection to a category, seem like the best solution.

Also nominated are the following:

Fram (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Fram (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what a mess, it gets worse and worse. I looked at Index of United Kingdom-related articles where I note that Aberdeen is the first entry, but later we have a "heading" that itself is a link to List of cities in the United Kingdom (which isn't actually a straight list, it's a size-orientated summary of big cities with an intro), and this "heading" then has sub-headings below it, predictably including Aberdeen (again), and further down, we have a link to List of United Kingdom locations which is predictably a truly enormous list-of-lists, where Aberdeen can be found in List of United Kingdom locations: Aa-Ak. Would anyone in their right mind navigate all this lot rather than just doing a Google search for "Aberdeen Wikipedia"? I know some people really love classifying and listing, and I don't want to decry their work, but this all seems totally pointless? Elemimele (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As indicated, it is unmaintainable. It will never, and can never, be up to date. I think using Categories is a better choice. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hm, can an article be redirected to a Category? —Tamfang (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the appropriate Outline of ... article. These indexes are unmaintainable. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SunloungerFrog and my comments at the village pump. Sitting somewhere between categories and outlines, these indices are more useless than either. Toadspike [Talk] 11:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This is an online encyclopedia with a search bar and category system. Context-free lists of links with no organization beyond alphabetization do not serve a useful purpose for readers or editors. Reywas92^Talk 14:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding that Wikiprojects are more than welcome to maintain a indexed list of pages for whatever maintenance purposes they like, but these are not needed in mainspace. I would recommend deleting or moving other indexes after this. — Reywas92^Talk 15:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Aren't these superfluous to both categories and outlines? Katzrockso (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete all. I agree with what Reywas92 says. I can't claim to have looked at more than one or two, but, for example, the one for Chile will be useless for anyone searching for articles about Chile related to particular subjects. Athel cb (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For years, I and others have been monitoring all the ancient Egypt-related articles via the related changes, hunting down vandalism or whatsoever. I can't tell the others, but this one I guarantee is quite up to date and maintained. If you decide to delete it, so be it, but I wish there was a backup way to monitor the topic. Lone-078 (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same for Index of Singapore-related articles which is now maintained via a script by @Robertsky. I believe there are some other indexes which are maintained by similar scripts. ~ JASWE (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like to refer to previous similar mass AFDs. Depending on the state of the particular index, this should be raised individually or at least every single index should have been examined before being mass nominated here. ~ JASWE (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain the Index of Singapore-related articles and it is fairly up to date. The list is constrained to Singapore through preidentified related categories. I would rather to have this index kept, and have the option to have other indexes to be re-created when there is a way to keep them up to date (I am slowly working on extending my tool for other indexes). The indexes do serve several functions:
1. Discovery of new articles by search engines. Given that we do not have a sitemap.xml active, search engines do not know if there are new articles until much later (unless they are written by autopatrolled editors), and wikilinks in existing articles may not be picked up fast as search engines optimise their crawl frequencies of individual pages based on what they perceived as the time to content changes. i.e. if the existing article is being edited once a month and the new article is only linked in that article, search engines would be aware of the new article only a month or two later when they crawl that existing article next in a month or two (assuming that the search engines have no other ways to know that the new article exists). Search engines also do not pick up new articles that are manually reviewed by NPPers until much later and would require a link from somewhere for the new articles to be picked up after the review. The indexes, when well maintained, are frequently updated, and search engines will naturally crawl the indexes more often. This translates into faster discovery of new articles.
2. As a tool for anti-vandalism and spotting national level content hotspots. Through the related changes functionalities, local editors can monitor articles related to their countries for vandalism and other issues. The articles may not necessarily be in their personal watchlists, but because of the familiarity through proximity effect, the editors would be able to quickly jump in at potential hot topics that are not in their orbit previously.

– robertsky (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per robertsky, I like to add on that I particularly work on monitoring changes on the index for vandalism. Without an equivalent tool, localised vandalism will be much harder to respond to or be picked up. ~ JASWE (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Singapore article shows the limits of this system quite clearly, as it is one of our longest pages at 400K+ (for a fairly small country). Anti-vandalism is never a good reason to have an article, if a list is needed for anti-vandalism it should be in projectspace. And the Ancient Egypt page is far from complete, e.g. the whole tree of Category:Ancient Egypt in fiction seems to be missing, but also major things like the Egyptian–Hittite peace treaty, the Ancient Egyptian race controversy, Ancient Egyptian agriculture and so on. So even one that tries to be complete is very far from it, from even a cursory glance. Fram (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding to the maintenance of the index which I mentioned in my own comment above, each index is in very different states of maintenance. For the index of Singapore-related articles, it is maintained with occasional reviews (based on categories). If the Ancient Egypt index is far from complete and there are maintainers trying to do their best to do it, like all incomplete lists etc, should we not inform and discuss with the maintainers etc? Just because it is incomplete, do we delete articles and lists? If an index is in bad shape and no editors stepping forward to help to maintain it, I will agree that we should go ahead and delete it. As such, per my comment, a mass AFD might be inappropriate and each nomination in this mass AFD should be assessed individually and not lumped together. ~ JASWE (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I replied to the maintainers? To quote from above in this discussion: "For years, I and others have been monitoring all the ancient Egypt-related articles via the related changes, hunting down vandalism or whatsoever. I can't tell the others, but this one I guarantee is quite up to date and maintained." So it is in bad shape, but the maintainers believe it is "up to date and maintained" and put their trust in it to combat vandalism. Fram (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literally everything you mentioned above, from agriculture to the pages contained in the category you indicated, was already present in the index, so I don't really understand what you're suggesting. Lone-078 (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. @Lone-078, Index of ancient Egypt–related articles is not bundled with this nomination. However, Index of Egypt-related articles and Index of modern Egypt–related articles are.

On the general point about the pages being useful to counter vandalism and other disruptive editing, that being the case, is it not better that they are maintained in project space somewhere? Personally, as a reader wishing to know about, for example, Egypt, a dense list like this would not be my first port of call. That's why I think they do not belong in article space. A redirect in the first instance would preserve history for porting the content elsewhere. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the works in the category tree Category:Ancient Egypt in fiction are not included in that list either (obvious example: Papyrus (comics)). As it isn't even up for deletion, I guess it makes little sense to discuss it any further here though. Fram (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy the reasons for the lists. I can't see why indexes are better than categories for those monitoring anti-vandalism. I don't see any strong benefit to helping search engines find a new page more quickly: it's quite deliberate that new articles aren't exposed to search engines until after NPP has seen them, and we shouldn't do things that encourage search engines to find them sooner. Wikipedia-life is not a race; it's better to expose good, solid articles a month late than to expose articles that shouldn't have made it into main-space as soon as they do. Elemimele (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele Technically, the search engines are exposed to the new articles regardless of them being reviewed or not as long as they are first published (they probably ingest EventStream to pick up new articles). The search engines are honoring the noindex flag for non-AP created articles, while indexing AP created articles immediately. Even if the indexes are updated with the links to non-reviewed articles, the search engine will not index the articles in the non-reviewed state. The search engines require encouragement to look for reviewed articles after the review is done because there is no feed (sitemap.xml) for the search engines to look at. By having the links in the index, the search engines will run through them all when they crawl the index next, and will only index the article when the NPP review is done. – robertsky (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation - I do have considerable blind faith in Google's ability to find things... Elemimele (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, I think you are mixing different responses for different people into your reply, so I am going to address only the Singapore specific ones.

The Singapore article shows the limits of this system quite clearly, as it is one of our longest pages at 400K+ (for a fairly small country). Indeed, which is why one of the plans I have was to split the list into two when the time comes (it has actually). Also, while at 400k, I do acknowledge that there may be still articles not listed, but these would typically be in new category trees that have been created in the last few years and I am not aware of. i.e. Special:Diff/1324221152: most of the new 20+ articles here are as a result of adding the new (to me) sportspeoples categories into the list. Even then, many of the articles (about 600+ articles) in these new categories are already listed in the index beforehand through other Singapore related categories.

Anti-vandalism is one of the many possibilities that the list can be utilised for, but it was not my primary consideration. While the anti-vandalism patrollers have to monitor two lists in the future, it is better than having none. When I started maintaining the index, my interest for the index was to allow anyone who may be interested, no matter how remotely it may seem to be, to see at a glance what articles are there relating to Singapore. This is not possible with the Outline articles where only key articles or sub-lists are there; or Categories, as there is no one flat category available for all Singapore-related articles. In fact, we are encouraged to diffuse large categories!

I recognise that such lists are dynamic and must be actively maintained, otherwise they will quickly be out of date and incomplete, but that's why I am also taking my time to extend my tool so that such lists can be churned out as comprehensively as possible in an efficient manner.

As for the location of the indexes, I am ambivalent of where they will finally be if they are not to be at the mainspace as long as:

actively maintained indexes are not deleted,
if moved across namespaces, the existing titles will redirect to the final page titles.
if deleted due to lack of maintenance or updates, the indexes can be recreated at prescribed new locations, i.e. "Wikipedia:WikiProject CountryBall/Index of related articles", as long as maintenance and update viability can be addressed, and/or redirects can be created at old titles for discovery purposes.

– robertsky (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that if some of these are moved to projectspace, that there will be redirects from the current titles, as we normally don't redirect from mainspace to projectspace. I don't think anyone has any objection to your points 1 (if moved to projectspace) and certainly point 3 (I see no reason why these would not be allowed in projectspace, as long as they are of course not too big; a single page list for the US would be a bad idea). As for the mainspace, Singapore is a borderline case IMO: I excluded very small countries or territories from this AfD because for these a single page with all articles may be feasible and maintainable, but I included Singapore here as I thought it would become too massive a list. It's hard to know where to draw the line in cases like this of course. Fram (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Singapore is included because it would become too massive a list for maintenance, would a split be sufficient then to have the list remain in the mainspace? This is of course comes with a promise that the upcoming script/tool update will account for the split, and making maintenance relatively stress-free and easy for others to work on the index (these are already in the works actually. JASWE has been bugging me to do so so it is no longer a bus factor of one when comes to updating the index). The current workflow that I have takes less than 30 minutes to prepare the category list and for the generation of the index, and another 30 minutes to update into wiki, verify, and adjust if necessary. – robertsky (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Not a notable subject. If anyone wants to maintain an index on wikipedia about its own articles then they should use their own sandbox. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 12:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indexes are allowed in the mainspace per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. As for notability, that's a separate matter to argue on. At risk of being seen as braggadocious, would Index of Singapore-related articles be notable, because it has been cited as one of my main efforts on the project in the news? [1], [2].

Please don't make broad statements like maintaining indexes in sandboxes only are allowed (inferred from above), as it is going to invite whataboutism, i.e. "What about Index of branches of science? Aren't those notable? Should it be in a sandbox?". – robertsky (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that page could easily be renamed List of branches of science (currently a redirect). It's a narrow topic with only one type of article listed, all of which have descriptions, though I think it would be better with some further organization like by the major groups at the top rather than all being alphabetical. Broader indexes with people, places, history, sports, fiction, etc. aren't useful in the mainspace, and pages that lack organization or context (like Index of underwater diving: F–K has) should be discouraged or moved. — Reywas92^Talk 16:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to the corresponding Outline article per SunloungerFrog, such articles can never be adequately maintained due to the sheer volume of content within such topics. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 14:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are currently allowed, and if we can maintain these with a script, they may still serve a purpose, especially as metadata. SportingFlyer T·C 00:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per ATD. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, not redirect, as they will have no meaningful incoming links, once templates are updated. A few nav templates e.g. Template:Asia related articles index can also be deleted once the articles are gone. – Fayenatic London 22:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the main usage of these pages is to provide a list to monitor the changes via the related changes link, may be moving them into Wikipedia or Wikipedia/Project namespace would be the best solution?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, such indexes are not a good idea to include in Wikipedia. Feel free to maintain an index in WikiProject space. Geschichte (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the outlines. While I would normally support deletion in this matter, these indices are very large pages with lots of views. I definitely think that there are a considerable amount of external links to these pages. Thus, per WP:CHEAP, these should be redirected so not to break these external links. I would like to delete these articles per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it is not very encyclopedic to just have alphabetically sorted pages rather than topically sorted pages. Furthermore, if this AfD is succesful, then I would like this to be added a guideline somewhere, or multiple guidelines, like on NLIST, GNG, INDISCRIMINATE, etc. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 23:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or redirect to outlines. Such manually created massive lists are unmanageable and impractical for humans--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I typically favor an ATD when possible but I checked a few of these titles and can't fine an "Outline" for that article subject. For Redirects and Merges, editors advocating this outcome have to identify the target article if they want that to happen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all With all due respect to the page maintainers, these pages seem like distressingly manual efforts to duplicate Categories and What links here. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Incomplete lists which seem to be attempting the jobs of categories and none of the subjects are notable. I don't see redirecting as an ATD is this situation. TarnishedPath^talk 06:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honduran football league system

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

Unsourced. May be WP:SYNTH. Not sure there is an official “system”. Football in Honduras would cover this if there was anyway so not sure an article like this is even needed.4meter4 (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Honduras. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Football in Honduras. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Football in Honduras#League system – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Unwritten Law

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

Fails WP:NALBUM; should be redirected to Unwritten Law discography#Compilation albums per WP:20THCM. RedShellMomentum ☎ ✎ 21:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. RedShellMomentum ☎ ✎ 21:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimtown, Missouri

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

No evidence this place was officially recognized or otherwise meets WP:GEOLAND, and a BEFORE search finds no significant coverage. Sources 1 and 3 verify its existence but nothing more. Sources 2 and 4 have trivial mentions of "Jamestown", which may or may not be the same as "Jimstown", but no sources explicitly connect the two names. (Note that there was a different Jamestown that was known as Jimtown elsewhere in Missouri.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Missouri. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one source regarding the Jimtown in Andrew County which notes that it was a railway station with a few buildings, primarily a regionally significant church. This is less significant coverage but is representative of what I've been able to turn up - the location was primarily defined by a church, which was considered to be regionally significant. Normally I'm not a fan of merging over questionably-notable geostubs to articles for the larger subdivision, but I think there is a good case to merge to ~~Andrew County, Missouri#History~~ Jefferson Township, Andrew County, Missouri given that I've been able to turn up sources indicating that this place actually had significance in the county around the time of the Civil War. Hog Farm _Talk 03:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging with the larger subdivision, which in this case would be a township (not county), called Jefferson Township, Andrew County, Missouri makes sense. This procedure of merging a smaller place with its township has occurred a number of times in northwest Missouri, (e.g. Carmack, Missouri, Elk Dale, Missouri, Center Point, Missouri). SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that merging to the township would be better - I didn't realize that Andrew County was one of the township counties. Hog Farm _Talk 16:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me to merging to the township. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was onces described as a "trading point" [3]. Merge to the aforementioned township per above.

Further coverage on the church [4] Katzrockso (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D2h

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

This was previously merged into Dish TV (and subsequently the redirect was edit-warred substantially). An account with one edit made a new article from the redirect without justification. All the independent sources are covering either the merge of the two companies or Direct-to-home television in general. There's also a promotional tone, and I don't think there's anything here worth merging. I'd like to restore the redirect. lp0 on fire () 18:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. lp0 on fire () 18:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - History is not inherited, not to mention edit wars are likely to continue if the article stays up. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The brand still exists and has independent infrastructure. Sufficient time should be given for this article to improve. ~2025-34769-95 (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dish TV – There is already a section in the article, just necessary to incorporate the sources and some of the content. Svartner (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the risk of an edit war, also protect the redirect after the merge. Svartner (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's clear that this article won't be Kept but the question is whether or not this discussion will close with a Merge. If you want this page returned to Redirect status, the article doesn't have to be deleted first, we can just close it and redirect the page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Liz. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honda H100S Super

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Cited to the manufacturer and another source which cited our Wikipedia page as its source making citogenesis a problem.4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Time for this one to ride into the sunset. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 20:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana State University Business Education Complex

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

I have been unable to find reliable sources that convey notability to this campus extension. I think that the non-trivial details of this article should be merged into E. J. Ourso College of Business. Martey (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability has been demonstrated for this entity. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Lewis (runner)

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

Don't see coverage that would meet WP:GNG, or achievements that would meet WP:NTRACK. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Iowa. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe making the Olympics is a requirement for notability. If it was, many longstanding approved Wikipedia articles on track athletes would need to be deleted. Having a standard of Olympics or World team where only 3 per event qualify makes no sense relative to the massive volume of articles on athletes from other sports (soccer, American football, baseball, basketball, etc). There is a bias against track and field athletes and distance runners on Wikipedia due to the 4 year Olympic cycle and so few athletes reaching the Olympics (120 every 4 years). By contrast in any given season NFL season there are over 1,500 active players and most of them have a Wikipedia page. Tristatedist845 (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That might well be a fair criticism of the WP:NTRACK standard, but it doesn't change the fact that that's the standard currently in place, and I don't see Lewis meeting any of the criteria listed there, which are much broader than just those who made the Olympics. Please check those criteria - if he does in fact meet one or more of them, then I submitted this article to AfD in error, and will promptly withdraw it with my apologies. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BubbaJoe's analysis. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject fails GNG - also see WP:NOPAGE. There is the Aug. 5, 2016 profile in the Des Moines Register that would count to GNG and while you might count one of the Ottumwa Courier references as GNG, all we really have for an article is local runner does good (which in my mind does not quite meet our expectation of who is "worthy of notice"). What WP:NSPORT (and other SNGs) does/did a good job with is setting a threshold for when an athlete likely should be included because of their noteworthy achievements. And, I would posit that not every athlete that does gets coverage should have an article, even if there might be just enough coverage of their career as a prep or university athlete to meet the threshold WP:BASIC (See also the reasoning behind: An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and WP:LPI) --Enos733 (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added and sourced two results -Los Angeles Marathon and Indianapolis Monumental Marathon. Along with his Grandma's Marathon result which was already cited, Lewis has three top-10 finishes at notable national-class road races. Tristatedist845 (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Race results are nice, but they do not meet the standard expected under WP:GNG to assess notability. While 3 top-10 finishes means the subject is quite good, the standard we have is 10 top-3 finishes in major road races (see WP:NTRACK). I think we need at least one (if not two) more GNG sources to pass GNG. - Enos733 (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

South Asia Peace Initiatives

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

No indication of notability per WP:ORG. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a lot of coverage from Unification Church sources like the Universal Peace Foundation, and the usual social media, but no significant coverage in reliable, indepedent sources. Best I could find was an article about the Prime Minister of Nepal speaking at a SAPI-sponsored event [5], but the group is only mentioned in passing, in article about his speech. Wikishovel (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Nepal, and India. Wikishovel (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. Poor sources that are mostly 404 error. No secondary independent reliable sources with significant coverage on the organization to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Ballers

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

All the team pages for the teams in this league are basically the same and simply state the team was formed by Lavar Ball's JBA which played one season and the team held tryouts, pretty much not meeting WP:GNG. All of that could simply and is covered in the general Junior Basketball Association article. So making this a group nomination for all of the teams - except Los Angeles Ballers, which I guess got a bit more coverage because of Lamelo and LiAngelo Ball and maybe meets GNG.

Instead of straight up deletion, a Redirect to Junior Basketball Association is probably most fitting.

In total, I am nominating the following related pages because of the same above reasons:

RedPatch (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Basketball, and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 16:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Junior Basketball Association per nom. Probably there would be no harm in merging Los Angeles Ballers there too. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the league page seems fine, a bit of coverage found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaima Rahman

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

According to WP:BIO, for a person to have a separate article, there must be WP:SIGCOV in independent, third-party reliable sources. Most of the sources used in the article are about the National Prayer Breakfast. Besides that, I haven’t seen any detailed coverage of personal or professional achievements, and the sources are mainly family-centric, such as news like “whose daughter/granddaughter.” In this case, such one-dimensional, event-based coverage is not enough to create a separate biography.

According to WP:1E, if a person is discussed in the media because of a single event, their information should be kept in the article about that event, not in a separate article. From what I’ve seen, the sources in the article are centered around a specific visit in 2025, and beyond that, there is very little independent discussion about Zaima. So this falls under WP:1E.

According to WP:BIOFAMILY, “being a relative of a notable person alone does not make someone notable.” Such information is usually kept in the family article or in the article of the notable person.

Therefore, I think this page should be deleted and Zaima’s information could be added to the Majumder–Zia family article. Emdad Tafsir ◀ Talk ▶ 15:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Emdad Tafsir ◀ Talk ▶ 15:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article subject (she) was a subject of national controversy, per /Career section, as a result of the controversy a former minister had to resign, so obviously a notable topic. Also she is one of a regularly discussed topics in Bangladesh, such as recent coverage 1 and 2. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 16:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tanbiruzzaman, I have read the career section. The claim that she is notable because “a former minister had to resign” is not supported by the citations. Murad Hasan’s resignation resulted from multiple controversies, including derogatory remarks about Islamic scholars and an actress, alongside the comment involving Zaima Rahman. Reliable coverage makes clear that the resignation was not caused by the subject (Zaima) personally, and she was not the main focus of the controversy.
Moreover, the cited sources in the article are about the minister’s conduct and resignation, not about Zaima Rahman herself. They do not provide the significant, independent, in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON.
Per WP:BLP1E, a person mentioned incidentally in a short-lived, event-based news cycle does not gain notability. Being referenced in someone else’s scandal without substantial biographical coverage does not justify a standalone biography. Emdad Tafsir ◀ Talk ▶ 16:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You got misleading. read the section and cited sources again. However, this is not the only event I mentioned, you also mentioned about another event in main nomination, that is National Prayer Breakfast, and she is obviously one of a regularly discussed topics in Bangladesh, per my comment above, and I have searched on google (you can also try a query) there are lot more can be added. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 16:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 16:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete shows no notability. Mehedi Abedin 03:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not place for personal promotion. Hteiktinhein (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, Wikipedia is not for personal promotion, so we should remove promotional content from this article to make it suitable for Wikipedia standards. Zaima Rahman is an important figure in Bangladeshi politics because she is mentioned various times in the Bangladesh political landscape. Additionally, she is the daughter of Tarique Rahman and the granddaughter of Ziaur Rahman and Khaleda Zia. I believe we need to consider these points to improve the article's standard rather than delete it. Iftekharrr (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are some sources that provide WP:significant coverage. I'm not familiar with the sources and I'd like other editors to weigh in on their quality. If they are independent and reliable, then this article could pass the letter of the guideline of WP:BIO while being sustained over time. However, the coverage is limited to speculation about future endeavors, and is centered around two appearances. I'm not sure that the subject feels notable.

United News of Bangladesh (UNB) 2025-02-03 and 2025-11-23 have multiple biographical details, that address the subject directly and in detail including education, residence. Speculation about her future role in the BNP. Mostly keyed off of two appearances.
Ittefaq 2025-02 article on subject's potential role in the future of the BNP (political party)
Kaler Kantho editorial? 2025-11 with biographical information

—🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of sources about Zaima Rahman that are reliable, neutral, and not promotional. Iftekharrr (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @PacificDepths: I would say that UNB is reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS (France24, BBC, AP), The Daily Ittefaq is mentioned in the BBC media guide for Bangladesh, it is sometimes quoted in Google Books and Google Scholar, however, I cannot find its About page. Kaler Kantho "About" page states (Google translate), Kalerkantho is a national leading daily from Bangladesh, established on January 10, 2010. We serve complete truth to our readers, not the half., I would say it is unreliable. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damania

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

I was unable to verify this. Might be better to turn this into a disambiguation page rather than an article on a family. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. 4meter4 (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Per MOS:DABNAME, at worst, if the text cannot be sourced, convert to either a name holder on a dab page or anthroponymy list for the current content at Damania § Notable persons.—Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Daman, India. No sources and coverage to keep this page as a stand-alone article. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In its current state, that redirect would be a {{R to article without mention}} —Bagumba (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We also have four people with the surname Damania, so a convert to MOS:DABNAME page is preferable over a redirect to Daman, India.4meter4 (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Setindexify/Keep there are four people with this in the title. I will get to work on this soon since bold fixes are allowed even while an AFD is ongoing. The name itself is not suitable for a standalone. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:4meter4 I have setindexified the page. Since no one has yet supported deletion and you endorsed conversion to a set index above, you can just withdraw this if desired and we can all be on our way. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Transformation into a WP:SETINDEX would be the equivalent to deleting the primary topic (the family). As such, a community discussion following the mandated AFD seven day discussion protocol is not optional. We need to follow the AFD process even if an WP:ATD is a likely outcome. It's good to know there is growing support for a set index because that would be a good outcome.4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:4meter4, conversion to a set index does not require an AFD, or even a talk page discussion. Indeed even outright redirection can be done boldly. I do both without a second thought. Challenges can discussed informally on article talk pages too, though formal discussion may still be needed to resolve deadlocks. WP:BEFORE C(1) is quite explicit that AFD is not needed for these cases, again up to and including an outright WP:BLAR. Perhaps that is slightly proceduralist, and maybe there is a reason to deviate from normal procedure here, but I do not see it. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are here now. I see no need to truncate the process. It doesn't hurt to allow for a few more days of discussion. That way nobody can cry fowl, and we won't have to come back here if someone objects.4meter4 (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:4meter4 if this is your preference I will not press the procedural point. However I will not stand in the way of someone who does either. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, The IP rewrote the article, and now it is a standard article on the surname with four entries. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Trotman

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

fails GNG. looking at sources online its mostly opinion pieces she wrote, and promotional-toned interviews. Not anymore notable than any random local board member. Article also appears to be mostly written by the subject herself TheLoyalOrder (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 10:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to meet GNG through a few sources. Also, is New Zealand Order of Merit a "well known and significant honor" for WP:ANYBIO?

Stuff 2016 Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit, 2019 profile, 2021 resignation and Western Springs Forest,

New Zealand Herald 2016 Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit

New Zealand Business February 2014: promotional tone, but an in-depth article with biographical information. partial link: "Woman of influence: Sarah Trotman is living proof that success and influence often go hand in hand with defeat and sacrifice. Mary MacKinven profiles one of New Zealand's most passionate business supporters."

🌊PacificDepths (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. stuff 2016 isn't significant coverage (just one brief bit amongst many other people), the 2019 profile is promotional in tone imo, and on the 2021 resignation source "local politician resigns" isnt exactly a notable event

2. isnt really significant coverage, you could probably use it for the article on the 2016 ONZM grants

3. a promotional tone article in an industry magazine.

There's like maybe 2 sources here, both promotional in tone, and you're gonna have NPOV issues. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue you're saying is less about WP:NPOV (reflect coverage from reliable sources in due proportion) as much as it is gauging the reliability of the source. You may be calling it human interest reporting in WP:NEWSORG.

Second, just one bit amongst many other people can still be significant coverage. The guideline doesn't state that. We can debate how much coverage is needed to be significant. One interpretation is that 100 words is enough.

Third, is the New Zealand Order of Merit is a well known and significant honor that meets the standards of notability in WP:ANYBIO? 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my keep vote: I believe Stuff (Niall 2021) has some secondary analysis and coverage of the subject with some context of her relationship to the project and history on the local board (Paragraphs such as "Trotman had been the elected member most critical...", "In April, Trotman was arrested..." and "Trotman had been the third highest-polling member...".). However, I'm not sure I can find another source that has WP:SIGCOV and isn't so reliant on primary sources. 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All NZ Herald sources are merely interviews of the subject. The Stuff source, I suppose, does not meet the high parameters set for BLPs. The other sources mention the subject in passing. I'm open to retaining this article if further sources can be found. Just from an encyclopedic standpoint, the article in its current state does not seem fit to be in the mainspace. Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 10:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per details above by User:PacificDepths. — Maile (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit isn't a significant honour, its the 2nd lowest on the list and equivalent to an OBE. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with comment above about GNG, which she very clearly falls short of. I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Extensive coverage of Trotman in the media (here are articles/interviews from major sources with non-trivial mentions: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]). --Prosperosity (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who voted keep above, I don't think this is helpful. Your first link is an interview (though the intro is possibly more independent). The second link is also the source in their own words. These are not independent sources, being mostly primary sources. With WP:reliable sources we are looking for secondary sources that have done some research or analysis of the subject, one step removed from primary sources. Link #6 mentions Trotman once, in passing. It's not WP:significant coverage. I suggest paring this down to two or three sources that you can demonstrate are independent, reliable secondary sources, with significant coverage of the subject, to meet the WP:basic biography notability guideline. 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Microcabin

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH with sources amounting to minor announcements. Japanese article not any better. There are some sources found on the talk page but all from a single publication and don't seem particularly significant. This "cabin" may need to be boarded up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xak or AQ Interactive. The latter might be better for being a plausible subtopic redirect. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should also note that the article may have to be moved to Microcabin (company) if redirected, because they seem to be an actual form of cabin and should probably redirect to Tiny-house movement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AQ Interactive. Plausible search term, as a subsidiary company of the target. Sergecross73 msg me 03:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Labour League of Sweden

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

Political party that failed to ever win any elections/ get any seats. Not clear if this passes WP:ORGCRIT. At the moment has zero sources.4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sweden. 4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know nothing of this subject matter, but I see that 21 years after creation, it still has no sourcing. — Maile (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If WP:BEFORE had bee done, it would have been revealed that the Swedish interwiki is referenced. And WP:BEFORE would have revealed that SKA appears in many potential sources, as being the first . See [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], etc. SKA was a small group, but is historically notable in literature as the first anti-revisionist organization in Sweden, and served as a precursor to the 1968 left and a bridge from the old SKP to the various groups on the Maoist left of the 1970s. --Soman (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do these pass WP:ORGCRIT? Linking to a bunch of books without viewable text isn’t much of a demonstration of SIGCOV. (Although different countries have different access levels, so depending on where you are you might have access) if these had viewable text with in-depth coverage I might take your criticism, but they don’t. Offline foreign language materials isn’t something one would expect to come up in a BEFORE. Have you read these? What do they actually say? You are going to need to give us a bit more to prove your point because I can’t access a single word inside these.4meter4 (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added three sources (at least one I would characterize as unambiguous sigcov) to the article from offline DN archives. You can view the search results (although sadly not the full clippings) here. Zzz plant (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY. This is not an endorsement of their ideology. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Weirdly, the sourcing on the article in Swedish is hardly any better. If this was an extensive article in Swedish I'd feel more inclined to save this one. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Growler (1890)

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

Non notable cargo vessel. The sole source shows an utterly unremarkable career, and a basic search found results for a "French Bulldog 1890s pull toy" and the EA-18G Growler. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had not found any usable sources in my WP:BEFORE search either, and the WP:GNG compliance seems highly doubtful, given the subject is an obscure vessel with very little documentation outside Historical RFA. Additionally, it falls under the WP:ONESOURCE umbrella for relying on the Historical RFA entry alone. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the one source issue has been addressed, article expanded and improved. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the added sources clear the bar for significant coverage. Most are databases, and there are two very short news articles from the Historical RFA website that in my opinion don't meet the standard for significant coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:HEYed. Svartner (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not valid, because none of the added references demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thameslink Southern Great Northern

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

WP:TOOSOON, no WP:SIGCOV about this company yet, as there's not much really to be said about it. I don't know whether delete, redirect to Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise or DfT Operator is the best option though. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 20:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 20:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the franchise makes the most sense to me, it's not clear this will even be needed once May 2026 comes around. SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the franchise for now as it is WP:TOOSOON to know what the actual operator will even be called come May 2026. There's nothing in the article actually about the future operator. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 15:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Obviously mention there as well at Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise. At this point it is simply WP:TOOSOON.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Homophones (game)

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:NOTNEO and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find WP:SIGCOV. --Cyfal (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's unsourced, and I can't find any coverage. This appears to be WP:MADEUP. Crystalholm (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no SIGCOV or reception section. At this point, I'm seriously considering writing an essay on why reception sections specifically are so important for works of fiction. Gommeh 📖 🎮 20:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Summit Council for Peace

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

Subject is a non-notable Unification Church affiliated organization. Current sourcing fails to show notability. After close to 3 years with a more citations tag, the current citations are:

1 RS partially Unification Movement funded source that gives a bare mention in a list of other UC affiliated organization

5 primary sources reprinting speeches from ISCP or press releases by the ISCP or their speakers

1 source giving a close paraphrase of a speech from an ISCP conference

With the exception of the bare mention in the middle of list of other similar UC organizations in ~~Freedom of Belief~~ The Journal of CESNUR which is partially funded by the Unification Movement (included in it's entirety below), all the sources are exclusively interested in the attendees, not the ISCP itself. This clearly fails WP:INHERITORG, which says An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. Some notable people have spoken at ISCP conferences, but ISCP is not itself notable.

The UPF is active through a number of specialized organizations, each of which holds its own events:
The International Association of Parliamentarians for Peace (IAPP)

The International Summit Council for Peace (ISCP)

The International Association of First Ladies for Peace (IAFLP)

The Interreligious Association for Peace and Development (IAPD)

The International Media Association for Peace (IMAP)

The International Association of Academicians for Peace (IAAP)

The International Association for Peace and Economic Development (IAED)

[...]
The Interreligious Association for Peace and Development (IAPD) has been launched on November 13, 2017, in Seoul, as a partner association of IAPP. More than 60,000 attended the event at the Seoul World Cup Stadium. The idea behind IAPD is that the aims pursued by the IAPP parliamentarians, and by UPF in general, also have a spiritual dimension, and that dialogue between religions is a necessary pre-condition for peace. Regional meetings have gathered representatives of most major religions.
— The Journal of CESNUR

CamAnders (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC) Edited: 10:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CamAnders (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 November 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links? I don't understand, yesterday I found and opened all those links again. Therefore, all Wikipedia users can open those articles and verify all sources of information.

In any case, let other WP editors check all the sources of information and make a decision. I will accept the decision of the WP community.

If other WP editors conclude that the sources of information are not reliable or that they are dead links (which I do not agree with because I opened all the links without any problems) and that it is not an important topic for Wikipedia, I will accept such a decision. DanielCro (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, I think you meant to reply to me on this page. I've replied there accordingly. CamAnders (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you very much.

Below is my answer on other page.

You are right about that one link, but all the other 4-5 links that I added yesterday are fine, the sources can be verified, and the additional content and information prove that this is an important article about a very important political initiative, for Wikipedia and beyond.

Thank you for your help and support trying to search for archives in order to rescue missing articles, I'm really grateful to you for this effort.

This only shows how important the WP community and mutual support are in achieving a common goal, sharing important information with the public DanielCro (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and Politics. jolielover♥talk 10:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Home Dead

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

Fails WP:NALBUM / WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kashmir_(Danish_band). Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ODI Global

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

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00661818	~ User generated although legally binding	~ Companies House has been trying to clean its act up	Offers zero analysis	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20100708041903/http://www.odi.org.uk/50years/default.asp#timeline	Organisation's website	Celebratory	~ There's depth but no independence	✘ No
https://odi.org/en/about/	Organisation's website	Promotional	Seems cursery and SEO motivated	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20100327143152/http://www.publicaffairsnews.com/panawards/previousawards07	Trade Publication	Celebratory award	Just a couple of paragraphs	✘ No
https://odi.org/en/press/advancing-knowledge-shaping-policy-inspiring-practice-odi-at-50/	Organisation's website (again)	Not an established publisher	~ There's depth but no independent analysis	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHAWj3-MHPQ	Organisation's channel	~ Might be, might not be.	Not a mainstream news channel like BBC or Channel 4	✘ No
https://globaldashboard.org/2013/11/07/odi-calls-vat-hike-energy-bills/		This is not what I would class as quality journalism....."It is unconscionable that a young man should have to pay 20% to buy a copy of Grand Theft Auto 5 in order to wind down after a hard day in the City by slaughtering virtual representations of old ladies, when real life old people are able to pay only 5% to heat their homes. This ‘warmth subsidy’ must end now."	Not really about the organisation is it?	✘ No
https://fic.tufts.edu/wp-content/uploads/Localization-FINAL-12.30.21.pdf	Partner content	~ Not enough known about the publisher	Doesn't appear to be about ODI Global	✘ No
https://odi.org/en/press/advancing-knowledge-shaping-policy-inspiring-practice-odi-at-50/	Repeated source			? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

There are plenty of mentions in RS and they obviously have a lot of influence but I couldn't find any indepth features about this organisation anywhere. Darren Packer (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per sources analysis. Svartner (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As every source fails, do away with it. CabinetCavers (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Home and Away Invitational League

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:ORG, WP:NSPORT, and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Philippines. 4meter4 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Zero sources, impossible to WP:V. Svartner (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Volleyball. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

INMerge Innovation Summit

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

Previously salted as InMerge Innovation Summit * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Azerbaijan. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 18:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event is the largest and well-established in the region. There are many Azerbaijani sources that Western media may not know or that may not be accepted in the English Wikipedia. However, the event has many international participants and spin-offs in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. An Azerbaijani language version can be found here and some of the local sources added to the English version: https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/InMerge_%C4%B0nnovasiya_Sammiti --AbeerT (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Damxung railway station

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

Unreferenced article. Individual railway stations are rarely notable. Per WP:NOPAGE this would probably be better covered at Qinghai–Tibet railway. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest checking for the station in Baidu and whatever the Chinese counterpart for Bradshaw's Guide is. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and China. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from the corresponding article in Chinese. There's a photo of the station that suggests it is reasonably large, but we don't have passenger statistics for the station. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are a few more sources:

"坐着"高"铁看中国！青藏铁路：最美的高原铁路线". China Central Television. Retrieved 2025-11-26.
"海拔最高的铁路改造一座城！青藏铁路通车17周年，拉萨当雄怎样了？". Sina Finance. Retrieved 2025-11-26 – via baidu.com.

Jumpytoo Talk 03:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holcomb Perigee

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

Unsourced since 2004. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Hits (Ace of Base album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ace of Base discography#Compilation albums – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Die Kommissarin

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

Article unsourced since creation in 2006. I cannot find any sources other than IMDB-like entries, some of which are copy pastes of sections of this article. Fails notability. Lenny Marks (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources found except for IMDB. Kvinnen (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Germany. Lenny Marks (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 17:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hannelore Elsner would be a good alternative to deletion. Sources do seem thin; the German Wikipedia does have a reference to a very short independent article commiserating the end of the series [28] but I'm not finding much else. Elsner and other female police leads were celebrated in a major museum exhibition, but it's not specific to this series.[29]. Unfortunately series like this sometimes don't generate the coverage you'd think; I do find it hard to imagine that something not dissimilar to "The Bill" could exist so long and vanish with so little trace. Elemimele (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Video on Trial season 8

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

All of the content on this page is built from the MuchMusic website which makes the show. In order to justify a split from the main article, we would need WP:SECONDARY coverage on this season. Otherwise its a WP:BADFORK.4meter4 (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Video on Trial season 7

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

All of the content on this page is built from the MuchMusic website which makes the show. In order to justify a split from the main article, we would need WP:SECONDARY coverage on this season. Otherwise its a WP:BADFORK.4meter4 (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jasuben Pizza

AfDs for this article:

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

Jasuben Pizza appears to be a small local business whose coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources is limited and not sustained over time. Most coverage dates back to a handful of news articles around 2013, and there is no recent independent reporting or in-depth analysis to demonstrate broader significance or enduring notability. Some claims in the article are unverified or anecdotal. Under Wikipedia’s notability policies for organizations/businesses, the topic does not convincingly meet the threshold for a standalone article; therefore it should be proposed for deletion. OrigamiSoft (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Gujarat. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are not too many modern news sources, however, Google books show significant coverage in reliable publications such as this. Orientls (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see the argument for !Keep in the first deletion discussion, but at this point WP:SUSTAINED would come into play. It received its 10 seconds of fame (even an article in The Wall Street Journal), but very little since that time.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart of a Negro

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

Announced but never created film without reliable indepth sources. I redirected it to Lincoln Motion Picture Company#Unreleased future projects because it lacks notability, but was reverted. Part of a school assignment apparently. Would suggest redirecting it again as an WP:ATD. Fram (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the inconvenience. Even though the assignment is over I still intend on coming back to edit the article at a later date with more reliable sources because I am genuinely interested in creating Wikipedia articles. This is also my first time with something like this and I do not have any external help or assistants so I am trying to learn this on my own. Aidan Fields (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. It looks like this was planned, but never came to fruition. I think that this is something that could be covered in the company's article, but I don't think that it's notable enough for its own article, based on what I was able to find. The mentions are generally in passing and it doesn't sound like they did more than announce it and plan actors. Since this is for a class assignment I would recommend moving the article into the user's draftspace so they can have a copy for grading, if there isn't a copy already. This would also give them a place to work on this if the AfD ends with the article getting redirected or deleted prior to the end of their course, just in case there is enough coverage to justify inclusion and they weren't able to get it into the article before then. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.‎

I'm withdrawing the nom, I obviously forgot NPROF. (non-admin closure) monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T. R. N. Rao

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

All sources are primary or authored by the subject himself. HE is an ACM Fellow and IEEE Fellow - see https://awards.acm.org/award_winners/rao_1788686 and https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=782176

But there are no biographies or articles about him that are independent and/or in-depth. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, India, and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 17:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3, totally erroneous nomination that clearly states in the nomination statement itself a double pass of notability through WP:PROF#C3. Note that although this criterion still requires its sources to be reliable, they are allowed to be primary and non-independent (statements from the society giving the fellowships as also given in the nomination statement itself) and that PROF in general does not rely on having in-depth independent secondary sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, as distinguished professor [30] and Z.L. Loflin Chair Professor (various author bios on his publications) he also passes #C5, and his citation counts give him a strong case for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per David Eppstein. Mccapra (talk) 20:04, 2 December 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.

ABA Centers of America

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

The notability of this subject is questionable. The business profile in Inc. (currently reference one) is really the only independent source currently cited that covers the subject in any kind of depth. The other coverage by Inc. and the Financial Times appears to be nothing more than austere rankings sometimes accompanied by a brief paragraph about the company and/or a company self-description.

Many other sources cited in the article are of unknown editorial quality, such as the industry publication Behavioral Health Business. Further, many sources focus on the organization's founder more than the actual organization (e.g., the firm Ernst & Young giving him their "Entrepreneur of the Year" award).

In recent months, the subject has made mainstream news after being sued by the grocery chain Publix for alleged insurance fraud, which raises its notability, but perhaps not by enough to warrant a standalone Wikipedia article. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Business, Behavioural science, Psychology, Florida, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems to be a lack of reliable sources. Masterhatch (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katiola Airport

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

Fails WP:GNG. I'm unable to find any reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of this airport. The best that I could find was this one-line passing mention in this book: "Katiola is served [...] by a small regional airport." (p. 316) Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and Ivory Coast. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A search in French for Katiola Aerodrome did bring up a couple more hits but I can't access the full text and it doesn't look significant anyways. It's also the simplest of airports - a dirt airstrip. SportingFlyer T·C 21:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderobot

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

Created with no credible claim of significance or passing of WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only source I could find that (as far as I could tell) comes from a reliable source is this [31] from TechRadar. That's not SIGCOV of the company itself, so I have doubts over notability. Gommeh 📖 🎮 16:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NGAME. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Chan, Hing Kai; Liu, Martin J.; Wang, Jie; Zhang, Tiantian (2022). "The Thunderobot Technologies Crowdfunding Case: Equity-Based". Responsible Innovation Management. Singapore: Springer Nature. pp. 27–31. ISBN 978-981-19-4479-6. ISSN 2731-4162. Retrieved 2025-11-27 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Thunderobot Technologies is a reputable Chinese company that specializes in esports ardware and software. Popular apparatus and instruments provided by Thunder-obot include esports notebooks, esports desktops, and other esports peripherals. The mission of the company is to "Allow every player to have an extreme game experi-ence." In 2014, Thunderobot Technology secured its A round funding of 5 million ... As a result, Thunderobot has attracted 4 Dongjia investors with a total investment of 4.715 million RMB (accounting for 3.13% of the total shares) and ten little Dongjia investors with a total investment of 285,000 RMB (accounting for 0.19% of the total shares). After this equity-based crowdfunding financing, Thunderobot Technology successfully raised 15 million RMB and the company's value has increased from 135 million RMB to 150 million RMB. The success of this equity-based crowdfunding put Thunderobot Technology in a more competitive and advantageous position in the esports industry."
2. Wang, Fengbin; Zhang, Chi (2021). Thunderobot Strives to Build a Multi-Win Ecosystem. Renmin University. doi:10.4135/9781529763980. ISBN 978-1-5297-6398-0.
  The abstract notes: "Thunderobot, an SME specializing in gaming laptops, incubated in the Intelligent Interconnection Platform of Haier Group in 2014, has ranked no. 1 in the domestic market and in the top 5 in the world. Listed on National Equities Exchange and Quotations of China in September 2017, Thunderobot has been the first listed company in the game industry. Focusing in designing and marketing for gaming laptops and computer and peripheral devices, Thunderobot began its ecological layout just less than one year after its establishment. From hardware to software and then cultural creative industry, Thunderobot’s landscape is expanding. Now, Thunderobot does not fight on its own; six subsidiaries have been emerging gradually, making the Thunderobot fleet stronger. Until October 2017, Thunderobot’s ecological revenue has reached RMB 180,000,000 per month, taking 15–20% of the total. Thunderobot begins to harvest from its ecosystem. But some questions remain to be answered: How to maintain a virtuous cycle of the whole ecosystem? How can the ecosystem survive forever?"
3. Liao, Ganli; Li, Lele; Zhao, Qitong; Li, Yi (2025). "Exploring multiple pathways to high entrepreneurial performance in digit-oriented spin-offs: based on optimal distinctiveness theory". Chinese Management Studies. doi:10.1108/CMS-10-2024-0751.
  The article notes: "Qingdao Thunderobot Technology Co., Ltd. (Thunderobot) serves as a typical case for this configuration. As a high-performance specialized computer hardware equipment provider, Thunderobot’s products are primarily used in scenarios such as e-sports, video creation, creative design and digital office environments. Thunderobot has rapidly established its own supply chain and sales channels by deeply embedding itself within the parent network and leveraging the resources and strengths of its parent company, Haier Group. For instance, Haier’s cooperation with world-class computer original design manufacturers, such as Quanta and BlueSky, has enabled Thunderobot, as a small-scale startup, to establish direct collaborative links with these major manufacturers through Haier’s network. Simultaneously, relying on Haier’s strong resource endorsement, Thunderobot has efficiently developed independent networks by leveraging the paths provided by venture capital firms such as Zihui Ventures and SAIF Partners. It has established stable alliance relationships with companies like Tongfang Information and Compal Electronics and has built a professional gaming platform called “Shenyou Network,” thereby constructing an independent value network centered on itself. Additionally, Thunderobot has adopted exploratory strategies, continuously innovating its products and upgrading its technologies. By delving into the gaming laptop market and building an e-sports ecosystem, the company has achieved sustained business growth and high entrepreneurial performance."
4. Li, Zhigang 李志刚; Xu, Chenhe 许晨鹤; Yue, Guolin 乐国林 (2016). "基于扎根理论方法的孵化型裂变创业探索性研究——以海尔集团孵化雷神公司为例" [An Exploratory Study about Incubating Spin-off Entrepreneurship Based on Grounded Theory——A Case about Thunderobot Company Incubated from Haier Group]. 管理学报 [Journal of Management] (in Chinese). Vol. 13, no. 7. pp. 972–979. Retrieved 2025-11-27 – via CQVIP.
  The abstract notes: "基于理论抽样,以海尔集团孵化雷神公司为典型案例,运用扎根理论方法进行探索性挖掘,提炼出母体企业孵化、研发团队组建、商业模式形成、裂变动机产生和新创企业生成5个主范畴,在此基础上构建出涵盖以上5个要素的孵化型裂变创业理论模型,并从母体企业作用、新创业务影响、创业驱动因素等方面进一步识别了孵化型裂变创业的主要特征。"
  From Google Translate: "Based on theoretical sampling, taking Haier Group's incubation of Thunderobot as a typical case, this study uses grounded theory to conduct exploratory research and extracts five main categories: parent company incubation, R&D team building, business model formation, fission motivation generation, and new enterprise generation. On this basis, an incubation-based fission entrepreneurship theoretical model covering the above five elements is constructed. Furthermore, the main characteristics of incubation-based fission entrepreneurship are identified from aspects such as the role of the parent company, the impact of new businesses, and entrepreneurial driving factors."
5. Lin, Nianxiu 林念修 (2019). 全国双创示范基地创新创业百佳案例 [Top 100 Innovation and Entrepreneurship Cases in National Mass Entrepreneurship and Innovation Demonstration Bases] (in Chinese). Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press. ISBN 978-7-5201-4932-7. Retrieved 2025-11-27 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "“雷神”是海尔内部孵化的典型代表，在海尔工作的三个“80后”发现游戏本领域的用户痛点并创业成立雷神公司，海尔双创平台对雷神公司提供了全流程全方位的投资孵化以及相关配套服务。该公司只用了半年时间产出第一款产品，创业第二年销售额就超过2亿元，创业第三年成功挂牌新三板，创造了“雷神”速度。二是脱离母体孵化模式。"
  From Google Translate: ""Thunderobot" is a typical example of a company incubated within Haier. Three post-80s employees working at Haier identified user pain points in the gaming sector and founded Thunderobot. Haier's innovation and entrepreneurship platform provided Thunderobot with comprehensive investment incubation and related support services throughout the entire process. The company produced its first product in just six months, achieved sales exceeding 200 million yuan in its second year, and successfully listed on the New Third Board in its third year, creating the "Thunderobot speed." Secondly, it broke away from the parent company's incubation model."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Thunderobot (Chinese: 雷神公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gommeh. Go D. Usopp (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raiden (series)

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

Fails WP:GNG, no notability demonstrated independent of the series' games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This nomination isn't really sufficient for a series article. Many of entries have their own articles. Are you suggesting that they're all non-notable? Or that the games are, but the series somehow isn't? Where are you going with this? Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They nominated the company article (MOSS) to be deleted which ended up redirected here. Now they're nominating this article for deletion as well. To me it just says: "I'm not familiar with shmups; therefore, they aren't notable enough." I agree the series article could use some work but I won't bother if it will end up nominated over and over again until it's deleted. Jotamide (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping this isn't an attempt at "indirect deletion" like that. But either way, this was a poor nom. The nominator is experienced and should know better. I'm waiting to see if they plan on expanding their rationale before I give an official "speedy keep - invalid nom" rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Sergecross73's comment. Deleting the series article would be counterproductive when multiple games in this franchise are notable. Nominator needs to provide better rationale for deletion. MidnightMayhem (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per the sources already present, and related wiki articles. Svartner (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - invalid, WP:ATA deletion rationale (WP:JNN). There's a ton of reliable source coverage present in the individual games (Raiden 1 has over 100 sources in it alone) so it's insufficient to simply vaguely allude to a lack of notability in the series itself. Could someone, conceptually, argue that a series article isn't necessary? I'm not sure I agree with the notion, but hypotherically, a plausible argument could be crafted. But this isn't it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What I mean in the rationale was that it has no independent notability per MOS:VGSERIES. As I did not nominate any of the games, I obviously didn't mean to say that the games weren't notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Tripathi

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO. Only minor roles so far, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up only interviews and the usual WP:NEWSORGINDIA puff pieces, with no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources.

This article was created by blocked sockpuppets, and more appear to have piled in before it could be db-G5'd, but better to take the article to AFD in any case, as it will just get recreated otherwise. This attempt was created at Mukesh Tripathi (actor) for some reason. Wikishovel (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Wikishovel (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete typical puff sources, not actually that notable ✾✾ 🙞 quái hoa 🙝 (talk) (contribs) ✾✾ 14:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:NACTOR. Svartner (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the three credited appearances are non-significant, and WP:NACTOR requires multiple substantial and clearly identifiable roles to meet the SNG.. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BRZRKR (franchise)

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

Content fork of BRZRKR, franchise doesn't exist as such yet. Best if all the information is kept together. --wooden superman 13:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. --wooden superman 13:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a main miniseries, spin-off one shots, and a published novel. Even if the anime and film never emerge from development hell that is still enough to qualify as a print media franchise which it is identified as such in the intro at the top of the page. If the film and series get cancelled we can just re-write the article so that it can be recontextualized as "Cancelled TV and Film adaptations". It seems unnecessary to delete the page. IonicBreezeMachine (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sector Control Point – Baghdad

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

There are some passing mentions in online sources but nothing that I can see comprises significant coverage. This is a low-level temporary military command (commanders of major to colonel rank only). Perhaps any relevant content can be merged to Iraq Survey Group. Dumelow (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Iraq. jolielover♥talk 10:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramonnya Nikaya

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

I nominated this article for XfD not because this Nikaya is excluded from the nine official sects but because it fails to show WP:GNG with enough WP:SIGCOV. Htanaungg (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and Myanmar. Htanaungg (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not see many sources that cover this subject at length, there are insignificant blurbs of content, but not substantial enough to warrant an article. Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 10:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the sources I used to make my decision.

1

2

3

4 Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 10:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to delete as a user has already incorporated it into a more encompassing article. နေနီဝန်း (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it’s not part of the 9 sanctioned schools does not mean this article should be deleted. They still exist. ~2025-37044-06 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Territory of the Congo River Alliance

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

Unnecessary fork of Congo River Alliance. Laun chba ller 13:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Alot of the information here isn't even mentioned on the Congo River Alliance page. JaxsonR (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind - Delete JaxsonR (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josie Music Awards

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

Promotion for non notable film awards. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from people they give awards to. PR for winners is not independent reliable coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no opinion on the article itself, but I did want to note that the subject is an award for music, not films. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Awards, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gnews brings up hundreds of mentions of people winning these awards, from the US and Canada. That would imply the award is well-known, not some "pay to play award" we see here being brought up. Sources are too many to mention, but this seems notable based on the volume of coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles, like the first hit [32], that are individual local wins an award are basically just PR for that individual and not independent coverage about the awards in general. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a well known award show, very notable. Deserved to stay. ~2025-37189-75 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: It's an award show for independent music artists and legends as well (this past year was Lorrie Morgan). https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CmZYc3scd/

The Josie Music Awards should stay. ~2025-37189-75 (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dagamela

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be cautious here. It is in fact a village with some coverage here [33] [34](passing mention here [35]), and there is actually quite a bit of coverage about the Chief Dakamela. It's also listed in this document [36] as a grain depot and health center, so it appears to be a more important village (at least in terms of having more developed institutions) than others. I don't believe that the Zimbabwe released census information that went down to the district level, but aggregated municipalities, we should probably merge to Nkayi, Zimbabwe and make a section for listing the villages. Katzrockso (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Da Mafan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. RedShellMomentum ☎ 22:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vivian Hsu discography: Fails WP:NALBUM. No SIGCOV in RS. RedShellMomentum ☎ 22:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrianmanotronavalonimerina

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

I almost nominated this under WP:G3 but decided to send it here on the off chance someone is able to find something. I could not find coverage of this name anywhere online, anywhere on WP:TWL, or on Google Books. Seems like it may be entirely fictional. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twelve sacred hills of Imerina – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article says this person was was later defeated by his brother, King Andriantsimitoviaminiandriana Andriandrazaka. The page for this brother, though, says the brother he defeated was "Andrianavalonimerina". The current title/name seems to be a garbled form of the actual name. The Malagasy book cited on the articles for his father and brother contains mentions of "Andrianavalonimerina", but no mention of the name the current article is under ("Andrianmanotronavalonimerina"). I could not locate the name on the archives of the source cited in an earlier version of the article either (RoyalArk madag4, and for good measure madag2). Probably best to delete it. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, oppose Redirect. Zero hits in Google Books, Google Scholar, ProQuest. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort in Sound (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Wales. RedShellMomentum ☎ 02:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Comfort in Sound: Fails WP:NSONG. No SIGCOV in RS. RedShellMomentum ☎ 02:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uralo-Siberian languages

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

Uralo-Yukaghir and Eskimo-Uralic are both notable, but Fortescue is essentially the only person proposing the combined hypothesis, and his work hasn't gained enough traction to have its own article. Stockhausenfan (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fortescue's article per nom. (t · c) buIdhe 06:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanisha Singh

AfDs for this article:

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

Still not yet notable per WP:NACTOR, WP:ENT, WP:BIO. Last AFD was in 2019 (so probably not eligible for speedy G4), but a WP:BEFORE search in English and Hindi returns nothing new, and I can find no acting, dancing, modelling or singing appearances newer than 2017. This latest attempt was created at Tanisha Singh (Dancer) for some reason. Some sockpuppet creation history, but that's pretty old too. Wikishovel (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Wikishovel (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No notability to be seen aesurias (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — the sources are routine announcements and do not meet WP:GNG, and there are no significant roles to support a WP:NACTOR claim. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1987 Buenos Aires Grand Prix – 1º Festival Automolistico Internacional de Formula 3

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

No sources establishing notability. -- Beland (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Motorsport, and Argentina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable sports event. Finding some newspaper articles but no lasting coverage to satisfy WP:SPORTSEVENT. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTSEVENT is primarily referring to sports leagues which utilise a home-away format and typically have a very-large number of matches (compare 2430 Major League Baseball matches in 2025 to 65 ATP Tour tournaments in 2025). Coverage of an individual Formula Three race other than the Macau Grand Prix is likely to be WP:ROUTINE (with a few exceptions, like the farcical European F3 Championship race at Monza a decade ago), but if there is coverage in newspapers then it sounds plausible (though still fairly improbable) that this event might pass WP:GNG. @Anonrfjwhuikdzz:, do you have links to the newspaper articles in question? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I erred --- everything I found in newsish sources was apparently for motorcycle or "MotoGP" which seems to be something. It will take someone with more spanish knowledge to find anything in Argentinian news. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Callidus Guild

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

Non-notable interior design firm. Almost all of the coverage is trivial in nature and fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly looks like an A7 to me but I'm going to kick it to tomorrow-me. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah I'm not sure most of these would met AUD. The HuffPost is a contributor (non-RS). Don't really know about How To Spend It but it doesn't meet ORGIND to my eye. Nothing not already in the article particularly stands out. Alpha3031 (t • c) 22:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a company, it fails WP:NCORP based on lack of WP:CORPDEPTH. However, the founder (Yolande Milan Batteau) likely meets WP:NARTIST if anyone has the appetite to create and then merge this into that.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garret Cord Werner

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Cited sources are either promotional/unreliable or briefly discuss this obscure interior design firm. Gheus (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, Canada, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as the other one, coverage seems to mostly fail WP:AUD. I'm not seeing any notability here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine

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

Questionable notability; article currently consists mostly of details that are trivial and/or unreferenced. 42-BRT (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 42-BRT (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article is mostly referenced by primary sources. The content could use a few citations, although I am not able to find much based on a cursory search. Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 09:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is WP:SIGCOV in the following:

Anstett, Patricia (August 1, 2008). "School Has Name Leader". Detroit Free Press. pp. 1E, 2E.
Scott, Melanie D.; Battaglia, Tammy Stables; Erb, Robin (February 4, 2010). "OU's Beaumont Medical School Clears a Hurdle". Detroit Free Press. p. 10A.
Davis, Paula M. (March 28, 2010). "New Endowment to Be WMU's Largest". The Kalamazoo Gazette. pp. A2, A15.
Anstett, Patricia (July 6, 2010). "School's Goal Make Better Doctors: OU-Beaumont Aims to Diversify Lessons, Stress Patient-Care". Detroit Free Press. p. 6A.
Anstett, Patricia (August 9, 2011). "1rst Step for Doctors: OU and Beaumont Open Med School". Detroit Free Press. p. A3.
Gray, Kathleen (February 9, 2012). "Patterson Touts Medical Initiatives". Detroit Free Press. p. A3.
Erb, Robin (July 6, 2019). "OU Has New Way of Training Doctors". Detroit Free Press. p. Z2.

Passes WP:ORG. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:16, 2 December 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.

List of Nepal Premier League records and statistics

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

No evidence that a separate stats article is needed, as it doesn't pass WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. Instead, it's just a WP:NOTSTATS violation, as the NPL is in its second year and so most of the stats don't have any longevity or notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Cricket, Lists, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagendra K. Ujjani

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

Fails Significant coverage. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 07:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 07:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagendra K. Ujjani is a recognized film editor in the Kannada film industry, having worked on notable films such as Nathicharami (2018), which won the National Film Award for Best Editing. His work has been covered in several articles by major media outlets such as [example link] and [another source]. This indicates his contribution to the field and meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for people in the arts. Anjukkanju777 (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insult everyone else by using AI to write this. Is he really so non-notable that you couldn't even replace [example link] and [another source]? aesurias (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagendra K. Ujjani’s work on Nathicharami (2018), for which he won the National Film Award for Best Editing, makes him a notable figure in the Indian film industry. His recognition by the National Film Awards, one of the highest honors in Indian cinema, satisfies Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for professionals in the arts. 66th National Film Awards National Film Award for Best Editing. Anjukkanju777 (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cited award seems to lock it in. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The award contributes to notability, but most of the sources are about that one award (from 2018) and the few left about Ujjani himself are promotional fluff pieces -- for example this one from an unreliable source reading "For a bold controversial topic like transgenders, it indeed needed the expert hand of Nagendra K. Ujjani to tell viewers how long or short a particular shot should be in order to maximize the sympathy factor for transgenders. The cuts in the movie in any sequence or shot, in particular, are totally mesmerizing." aesurias (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the National Film Award for Best Editing looks like the Indian equivalent to the American Academy Award for Best Film Editing. And as such, meets WP:ANYBIO criterion 1: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. Admittedly I didn't find a huge amount of significant coverage so as to write anything more than this stub, but the article can be grown in the future. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — agree with SunloungerFrog. The National Film Award is a major, nationally conferred honour, and under WP:ANYBIO criterion 1 such awards are generally sufficient to establish notability. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trio (soft drink)

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

Lacks independent coverage. Svartner (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, India, and Tamil Nadu. Svartner (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doddle

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

Software that doesn't appear to have WP:CONTINUED coverage. The sources date back to the beginning of the project, and the official website itself seems outdated since 2013. Svartner (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, and United States of America. Svartner (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any in-depth sources and most of the existing sources seem to be user-generated blogs on trade websites. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sholay (1984 film)

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

First off, this is absolutely not to be confused with the 1975 Indian film Sholay, which is unquestionably notable.

However, this unrelated Pakistani film with an identical title does not appear to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG and I was unable to find any significant coverage. It only cites a very barren IMDB page and a dead-link database, and there is no sourcing for the film on any actors' articles either. MidnightMayhem (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search on google about the topic but didn't find any references containing significant coverage or film review about the topic to meet WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Please ping me If I missed anything. Fade258 (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per Fade258. Svartner (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Khelaifia

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

Only 3 professional appearances and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Algeria, and Finland. Svartner (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-career, now effectively ended by age. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayoub Latrèche

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

Only 4 professional appearances [37] (211 min) and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Algeria. Svartner (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shrikanth Molangiri

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

Only 5 professional appearances [38] [39] (316 min) and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, India, and Maharashtra. Svartner (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Johnson (musician)

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

Very little sourced evidence of notability. Only third party source is an early 2000s local newspaper article. Other than being a co-producer of the first the Fray album, nothing particularly noteworthy (according to his own website he has "had a hand in production" for the other artists listed, but is not credited as a producer in third party sources Little Professor (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, Colorado, Maryland, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Racjin

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Almost entirely unsourced since 2007 and significant coverage is zilch. Couldn't find anything in gaming magazines beyond a mention of the studio name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Snowboard Kids, most notable product. Deletion is also preferable as long as its former name still redirects towards the suggested target. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More support for redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed as an ATD, sure. Can't even find much in Japanese, though my skills in that language are rather limited. LightlySeared (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Csanyik

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

I found only passing mentions in sources, but nothing with more than a sentence on this valley. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unfortunately I found a bunch of blogs in Hungarian that seem to be duplicating the information found on Wikipedia. A detailed one here [40] has a list of sources, and cites the information about this valley to Györffy György I-IV (1963-1998) : Az Árpád- kor történeti földrajza. Katzrockso (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge into Miskolc relevant stuff that has been added since nomination. I have not been able to find any in-depth sources. The above mentioned Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza I. also doesn't have a lot about it, only a short paragraph. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote what's in that work or explain where to find the source text? Katzrockso (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Csenik 1313/339: t-m ... populosam Chenyk! vocatam prope v-m Gewr! (Egri k. o. lt. AB. 5!, F. VIII/6. 30); 1315/339: v-m ... Chenyk vocatam prope eandem Gewr! ... sep. t-m Gewr! a t. Chyenyk (Egri k. o. lt. AB. 5!, F. VIII/6. 35); 1317/318: v. Chenyg (Egri k. o. lt. AF. 50).
E lakott földet [Ákos nb.] Ernei bán fia István adta 1313-ban a diósgyőri ágostonos (pálos) remetéknek. Az 1315-i új adománykor már falu, melynek tartozékai között malom is szerepel (cum t. arabili et inarabili, pratis seu fenetilibus!, silvis et mol-o). Határát Győr felől (?) így írták le: St. pal. 1315/339: ... de supercilio montis Gulbuka! a pt. Or! et desc. ad 1 vallem ... desc. ad aquam Synua! ... ad Zacharispothoka! et per eandem vallem Zachariaspothoka ... ad magnam viam, que ducit in! Dedus ... ad Rakatyas! ... ad Begas tow! ... ad viam, que circuit, montem Gala vocatum et per eandem viam vergit ad Stanfeu et per supercilium eiusdem montis Stan ... ad Chokasku!; ex alia parte Synua ... ad montem ... (I. h. A szóban forgó hn-ek közül fennmaradt: Kneidinger: Diósgyőr térk. 1770 k. OL. Kam. térk. 830. 53. sz.: Rakottyás tó (erdő); 1886/888. térk: Szinva, Csókás, Békató és Gálya forrás). 1317-ben a pálos provinciális megerősíti az adományt. -- Ma hn. Diósgyőrtől ÉNy-ra. 1886/888. térk: Csenik vgy.; Hnt. 56: Csanyikvölgy. (Cs. I. 170.)

(Quoted exactly as written.) Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples here is information on the historical village. Machine translated, it verified the information about 1313-1315 and connects it to the modern place-name at the end. Katzrockso (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to Miskolc per WP:ATD now that the article's sourcing has significantly improved (for verifiability but not notability).4meter4 (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Miskolc as an AtD. While there's plenty of mentions, I haven't found anything substantial. Would consider Keep if sources can be found to verify and talk in some detail about the medieval village. Rupples (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of supplementary Doctor Who episodes

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

A list of "supplementary" Doctor Who episodes; the problem with this list is that the scope it's defining just... doesn't exist. This list includes things ranging from official "minisodes" to unrelated films produced in the 1960s to various spin-off material pieces from throughout the years in a way that official sources do not actually define as being a unified group. The grouping of these subjects together is entirely original research and any sources are discussing only individual entries without any information pertaining to how they connect to the other entries as a group.

Per WP:LISTN these lists need sourcing as a group to be notable but that neither that sourcing nor that grouping exists. A source search BEFORE yields nothing for the concept of "supplementary episodes" and any other search time I try yields nothing that indicates this grouping is notable, even trimmed down; even the "minisodes" mentioned above lack group notability. This list is simply non-notable and original research and should be deleted. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very confusing proposal for deletion. Per LISTN, the claim that "these lists need sourcing as a group" is blatantly false; quoting it, that is "[o]ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable". Indeed: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists", and "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." "Supplementary" means "something additional; an extra". These includes additional, extra content released outside of the broadcast episodes. That's a very clear scope and definition. At this point, there is no clear policy or guideline cited that supports the deletion of this article. -- Alex_21_TALK 01:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex 21 this is still original research. No source defines this listing of episodes like this, and we follow the sources above any other definition. This inherently goes against what Wikipedia is not. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again: that is not a core policy or "must have" per NLIST. Kindly refer to the rest of my quotes regarding that particular guideline and discuss why you believe they do not apply here. The article itself very clearly defines what is included in that article. -- Alex_21_TALK 01:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Original research should not be in any article, and just because it's a list does not mean it is exempt from that. The article may define the scope, but do sources support that this scope actually exists? Your other arguments are just arguing why, hypothetically, sources wouldn't be needed to prove LISTN, but the entire argument of a hypothetical navigational list is called into question when the entire topic is backed on original research with no sources discussing it whatsoever. You haven't actually addressed why this original research isn't a problem, nor have you discussed the inherent sourcing issues with this. An article having a few sources may have an argument, but having no sources at all is far more questionable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the original research? You need to have an actual basis and proof of policy violation before you make baseless claims, and your disagreement on the definition of a word is not original research, thus you've presented... nothing. That's what this boils down to - you disagree on the use of the word "supplementary". Your entire argument is based on ignoring the rest of LISTN, which you are now aware does not apply here. Does the article need more sources? Yes. So tag it so. A lack of sources it not a reasoning for a deletion; you've tried deletion discussions like this before, to no avail. -- Alex_21_TALK 07:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of sources is inherently a reason for deletion because if no sources exist, there's nothing to base an article on. I've done a detailed BEFORE and found nothing sourcing-wise that groups this topic together like this, nor anything that even discusses this topic period. I've said this multiple times above. If the sources don't exist we can't simply tag it as needing more sources and moving on, because that kind of improvement is unlikely to ever happen or even be possible. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the content in detail, I can agree that it's extended to far beyond what's necessary, but there's still relevant conntent here. Thoughts on my proposal below? The article used to only list actual supplemental episodes in 2021, before it was fancrufted out of proportion by one anon. -- Alex_21_TALK 21:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21, commenting on @Pokelego999 'trying this before to no avail' is a borderline violation of WP:FOC. PL is a respectable editor and the focus should be on content and not conduct.

WP:LISTN states the following: 'One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.' Emphasis here on the 'group or set' being documented, the latter sentence is referring to individual list entries, not the group as a whole, which still requires coverage from reliable sources. In this case, none of the sourcing in this list article, which relies on WP:BLOGS and WP:TUMBLR, among others, refer to "supplementary" Doctor Who episodes as "supplementary". For this reason I agree entirely with PL and !vote to delete the article. 11WB (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted, thanks for the ping. I have already discussed LISTN in detail, to the entire extent of the guideline, and I do not feel the need to do so again. If you disagree with my conduct, you are welcome to tell me so at my talk page, so you can focus on the content here rather than conduct. -- Alex_21_TALK 02:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I get what this list is trying to do. It wants to catch all the Dr. Who episodes and television films that don't fit neatly into the other lists. In that respect it is acting like a WP:Navigation page. On the other hand I get the criticism of the nominator, and we really should have a better source based way of organizing and defining the list. On balance, absent another way of navigating to these pages, I think the loss of this list as navigational tool would be bad. We do need an index for these episodes for navigational purposes and that is what this list currently does for us. So keep, but only for that reason.4meter4 (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge entries into relevant season articles: I struggle to see the organisational benefit of this list outside their main articles. The scope currently is wildly expansive, including mini-episodes, trailers, interstitial scenes and character crossovers, the Cushing films for some reason (which are neither episodes or supplementary by any measure), even BBC One idents(!). Clearly that scope could be refined and isn't cause for deletion in itself, but it does represent the wider issue that this categorisation isn't clear or significant, or helpful to Wikipedia readers. As long as all its "episodes" are mentioned in the relevant main articles, it's surplus to requirements. U-Mos (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd absolutely support removing content like the films, trailers and idents, they aren't needed here. I remember when this article used to literally list just the supplementary minisodes and episode-related content, then it was expanded unnecessarily by anon's. This is what the article used to look like before a singular anon made 240+ consecutive edits in October 2021 to the article (and then another 100+) - I support restoring this version. That way, the scope is restored to being defined as content released to accompany and supplement episodes. Thoughts? -- Alex_21_TALK 21:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd support restoring to that version in the event the article is kept, I still favour merge and delete. U-Mos (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. I'd say there's also nothing stopping anyone from restoring that version at the moment. -- Alex_21_TALK 22:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be unopposed to restoring it should this be kept, but I'm only going to change to a Keep vote myself if the minisodes can be found to be independently notable of the wider series, otherwise I favor U-Mos's proposal. I did a search for minisodes by themselves and found little covering them as a set, and I feel navigationally it makes more sense to organize them with their respective series articles than as they are now. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, fair enough. I'll go through soon and start removing the unsourced trivia/fancruft. As you said, a lack of sources is inherently a reason for deletion because if no sources exist, so there's no need to wait. -- Alex_21_TALK 01:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, think Alex has it right. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History Lessens

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

Fails WP:NALBUM / WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skyclad (band)#Compilations and live albums – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History (Dune album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM / WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dune (band)#Albums – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dune (band)#Albums ✾✾ 🙞 quái hoa 🙝 (talk) (contribs) ✾✾ 07:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Piggyspanx

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

The article relies on self-published material and non-existent Twitter posts for sourcing (BLP issue). Notability is not established beyond one Cardlines article. The page was created by the subject and primarily sourced to their own materials. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP, and suffers major COI problems. ACROM12 [TALK] 05:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ACROM12 [TALK] 05:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom aesurias (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Popular culture, Sports, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV with nothing found in JSTOR and scholar. Redirect also be appropriate if suitable title is found. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage are found. Fade258 (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needham & Company

AfDs for this article:

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

a previously deleted article that is poorly sourced. Coverage in NYT is sparse. A quick but not exhaustive WP:BEFORE suggests coverage hasn't changed since last delete consensus to meet WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, and Companies. Graywalls (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hin vordende sod & sø

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

Fails WP:NALBUM / WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect to Ásmegin#Discography. It lacks WP:SIGCOV. Aneirinn (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ásmegin#Discography – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:HEYed. Svartner (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the album is somewhat of an underground classic for its genre. I've added a few references and I'll work to expand it over the next few days to nominate it for DYK. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the nominator I've changed my opinion to keep per WP:HEY. @The Cosmonaut: nice rescue! @Svartner: and @Aneirinn: references have been added.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No HEY has been done here. One review and two interviews - sourcing is still weak. Also contains the WP:PEACOCK phrase "widespread acclaim". Geschichte (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, in addition to Metal.de it has further reviews in reliable sources Rock Hard (magazine) [41] Powermetal.de [de] [42] and probably a couple Norwegian offline sources. Geschichte (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of promotion

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

WP:DICTDEF, notability not established to justify article Reywas92^Talk 04:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State (project management)

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

WP:DICTDEF, notability not established to justify tautological one-sentence page Reywas92^Talk 04:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT - Project management. GobsPint (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a likely search term, it's a regular dictionary word used in its regular sense. That article does not use this word at all, since it's so generic and there's nothing to even define here. Reywas92^Talk 03:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Individualized Quality Control Plan

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

Notability not established with substantive independent sources – standalone article not needed for narrow regulatory topic (merge to Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments may be appropriate but I don't see the significance) Reywas92^Talk 04:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Management, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable subtopic on approach of statistical quality control in the United States for clinical applications. Ample sourcing available.GobsPint (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conscious quitting

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

Notability not established for WP:NEO to justify article that's just a WP:DICTDEF. Perhaps could be merged to Resignation, but this isn't something that needs a standalone page – it's not actually a trend or real phenomenon, just a neologism that a few clickbaity websites used in articles a couple years ago without much substance. Reywas92^Talk 04:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I'm not a believer in article deletion, unless it involves lies, crime or vandalism, but this one can be usefully merged elsewhere. So I agree with merging suggestion in the above comment. Storye book (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEOLOGISM (and one based on a single grossly over-interpreted survey from a couple of years ago) that seems to have had a short burst of coverage in RS at the time and nothing since. My BEFORE returns this WP article, the articles it cites, blogs, and a few questionable listicle-like "articles" from dodgy business and recruiter websites. At best, we could add this one-line article to list of Gen Z slang, since that's closer to what it actually is. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and if there is an article on "conscious starting" delete that too. there isn't a debate here so nuke it from orbit. - Walter Ego 07:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If not a debate, there is certainly a discussion here between delete and merge. Storye book (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to what though? - Walter Ego 12:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above suggestion is to merge into Resignation, which sounds fine to me. Storye book (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question ladder

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

WP:DICTDEF, notability and substance not shown to justify article Reywas92^Talk 04:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this silly article . Walter Ego 07:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ammadam

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

Unsourced since creation in 2006. Tagged for original research since 2010. Fails WP:GNG / WP:GEOLAND.4meter4 (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - villages are generally ok for notability per WP:GEOLAND. On Google Books we find many sources indicating the use of Ammadam as address. There is/was an Ammadam Post Office, an Ammadam Match Company, an Ammadam Regional Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. (could be same as the Ammadam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd?), an Ammadam St Antony's Church and so forth. Subject of study on fauna. Presumably the village was merged into the grama panchayat only after independence. --Soman (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hertford Castle Weir

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Wuchale

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

After searching on on google scholar, I am unconvinced this battle even occurred. A handful of blogs and wikias mention it, with just as much brevity as the page here. Fails WP:PROOF.

(I did remove a sizeable chunk of text prior to putting this here, but that entire section seemed to be a LLM hallucination talking about the 1896 Battle of Adwa against Italy.) Zygmeyer (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Ethiopia. Zygmeyer (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can’t find any reliable independent sources for this battle. However our article Tekle Giyorgis I mentions it and provides a source - Weld Blundell, The Royal chronicle, pp. 287–290. Does anyone have access to this? If we decide this is not verifiable, references to the battle will also need to be removed from List of battles 1601–1800, List of conflicts in Africa and possibly elsewhere. Mccapra (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a scan of it https://archive.org/details/royalchronicleof00welduoft/page/289/mode/1up, seems to be old enough to be out of copyright. It's a translation of a primary source, and the cited section describes a campaign against the "Wechale men". The decisive battle is listed as occurring on the 5th of Magabit, which roughly matches with the 14th of March listed on the page.

However, I don't think this is enough to build an article off of, as it is purely WP:PRIMARY. Also I don't know if translating the dates out of the Coptic calendar or listing the "Wechale men" as being Oromo would violate WP:OR. I feel like it might, but please tell me if that isn't the case. Zygmeyer (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I agree if that’s all there is then the battle isn’t notable and the article should be deleted. Mccapra (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Christian School (Maine)

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

This private school is completely devoid of any importance and indication of notability. It lacks any references, and any independent sources. It fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Maine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

China National Highway 101

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

Based entirely on self published travel websites and primary government sources. I could find zero independent sources. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 18:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GEOROAD as a major national highway. I see several sources on zh Wikipedia and Baidu Baike. This is like trying to AfD U.S. Route 101. Jumpytoo Talk 02:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment on the sources: the vast majority of sources on Baidu Baike focus on the construction of the new expressway section of the highway, not the original highway itself, so WP:RSCONTEXT might be an issue since those sources only mention the current highway in passing. Many sources in the Chinese Wikipedia seem to be from old road records (literally "road chronicles") that don't seem to be readily available online but I'll see if I can find a copy. For some reason, there is extensive coverage of the new section of the highway but little on the existing highway itself. Yaoshiiscool (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources describing upgrading portions of the existing highway to expressway standards are usable to show notability on the whole highway itself. If they were not it would make for very awkward articles where one could only talk about certain small sections of the highway. Jumpytoo Talk 19:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jumpytoo: meeting GEOROAD only means that its typically notable... It doesn't actually confer notability, only independent sigcov can do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging @Yaoshiiscool:, who is working on a draft article about a section of this highway. Jumpytoo Talk 02:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jumpytoo. Chinese road infrastructure articles on the English Wikipedia tend not to be well-maintained, but that shouldn't warrant deletion. I'll work on improving this article and other related ones in December when I have more time. Yaoshiiscool (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems odd that we have keep votes from editors who admit the sources don't cover the current road which is the subject of this article. Perhaps draftify would be a better outcome here given Yaoshiiscool's promise to work on this in the coming year?4meter4 (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I apologize for the confusion above (I meant to say WP:SIGCOV and not WP:RSCONTEXT), as I'm a bit new to this process. I've added a few sources to improve the article and I'd like a second opinion on whether these sources satisfy the requirements for WP:RS, specifically for WP:SIGCOV and WP:INDY. After a bit of research, it seems to me that there are some WP:RS covering the road but not necessarily as its main topic, which was my area of confusion. And to clarify what I said above, I was saying that the sources in the Chinese Wikipedia and Baidu Baike did not appear to have coverage of the article, but it now appears that some of these sources have sufficient coverage of this highway for certain points.

It appears to me that WP:GEOROAD gives national highways some leniency regarding notability and that the article, in its current state, satisfies notability requirements, so I'm not sure if there is anything else that needs to be addressed for this nomination. Please let me know if you think there is. Yaoshiiscool (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GEOROAD says "typically notable" but it gives no leniency regarding notability whatsoever. They are typically notable because independent sigcov typically exists... If it doesn't then they aren't notable under the notability standard and would have to be kept under WP:IAR alone. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I think that we can presume that sigcov of this topic exists... It seems inexplicable that academic accounts of China's road network development wouldn't lavish significant coverage on this highway unless perhaps I misunderstand how the Chinese highway numbering system works and this isn't in fact a very OG road... Such a presumption is of course not unassailable, but it would require at least a good faith scrubbing of a number of academic works beyond simple free internet access. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I almost closed this as keep, but it does seem heavy on presumption rather than fact. Relisting in hopes a firmer degree of consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Typically we would expect 1,000km long roads to be notable, and a quick look at the Chinese wiki shows that the article there is decent, with 16 sources and a long history. This can clearly be improved, albeit probably not using English sources. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imai Sadakiyo

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

This article has not shown WP:GNG. Looking at the history of this article, the sole source that was used for this article was [43], which is currently dead, and "wiki" raised a huge flag for me; the main website, [44], is also currently defunct. Being a samurai and a samurai only doesn't mean the samurai deserves a Wikipedia article. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 02:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Japan. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 02:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only mentions of the subject are in wikis, being [45] and [46], the first sourcing the dead source above and the latter not even sourcing. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 03:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Brit

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A puppet used some time around 2009 by a far-right party. Sources are 1. A list of 10 things to know about the party, 2. An opinion column that says that the party has far better recruitment techniques, 3. A TV panel show that mocks obscure and bizarre things from the week's news, 4. A blog (dead link). This is neither a notable exercise in far right youth recruitment (compare to Nazi punk and white power skinheads) nor a notable fictional character. When characters from major franchises are put in list articles because they are not deemed to have individual notability, surely this doesn't meet notability. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. In addition to the sources already present in the article, there is WP:SIGCOV in this academic book. All together seems to meet our notability threshold.4meter4 (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. jolielover♥talk 17:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to British National Party the two reliable sources are actually about the party not this puppet. Passing mention on a tv show and the last source is a blog. Can't find any other sources of WP:SIGCOV so I don't think this is notable enough for its own article. Orange sticker (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to British National Party - The coverage in reliable sources regarding the puppet is found in sections of articles/discussions of the BNP overall, and per WP:NOPAGE it would make the most sense for us to do the same here for the greater context this would provide. Rorshacma (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Aneirinn (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Tombe

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

This page doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements for academics. Google searches for sources supporting this person’s notability have turned up nothing that meets the requirements either. Clowington (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Clowington (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Here is one piece of WP:SIGCOV. This is borderline WP:SIGCOV although less convincing as it is interview oriented. This highlights him as a subject matter expert brought in to independently review the Bank of Canada. He's quoted as a subject matter expert in many articles, and has written pieces for several publications. For me this is borderline. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but it's possible others can find something I didn't.4meter4 (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 17:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article, I agree now that it fits WP:TOOSOON criteria. I will save it to my sandbox. I have no problem with a speedy deletion.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is now in my sandbox. I suggest a rapid deletion.Oceanflynn (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Checking his GS [47] with an h-factor of 18 and 2826 total cites he has made a strong start in a lowish citation field. However, when I look at his coauthors they are a bit higher so I have to conclude that he is not notable yet. If he had a significant award I might lean towards a weak keep, but I don't see anything.Ldm1954 (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yombe language (disambiguation)

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

Only lists two items, with one being treated on the project as the primary topic (automatically linked from here), so very close to WP:G14 – unnecessary disambiguation. A dab template on top of Kongo language does the work just fine. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 November 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Africa. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Yombe. These are two different languages of the same name which can easily be confused, and there are also two people group of the same name. Both languages and people group of the same name are not related to each other. At very least, redirect to the said page. I am the creator of the AfD disambiguation page. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing a page that has “language” in its title. The peoples per se are already left out. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep... Yombe language redirects to Kongo language. Oddly Kongo language is not even listed at Yombe language (disambiguation) and it is apparently the primary topic. If its added there are three topics, making the need for the dab page clear.4meter4 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kongo language is listed. Anyway, the alternative is moving to Yombe language and change the automatic link from the module above. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. It was confusing the way it was laid out as typically a primary topic gets linked at the top of the dab page. The alternative you just suggested seems like a good choice.4meter4 (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4, @IvanScrooge98, please explain to me as you would to a five-year old. This is because there are actually two different languages that share the name “Yombe language”. They are not the same, neither do they have the same history, and at least one of them is not part of Kongo language at all. At the moment, “Yombe language” redirects to “Kongo language”, but that redirect is only correct for one usage of the name. As for the otherr language, it is completely inaccurate. If we move this page to the base title, we would end up sending readers to the wrong language. That’s exactly why the disambiguation page was created, to separate two unrelated languages that happen to use the same name. Instead of deleting it or moving it, it’s better to keep the disambiguation page so that both topics are properly directed. So currently, I am leaning towards "keep". -Tumbuka Arch (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, if we conclude that there is no defined primary topic, we move the dab page to Yombe language and fix the automatic links. It’s an alternative. The only thing that is certain is that when there are only two topics involved the situation shouldn’t stay the way it currently is. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, when you created the dab page, the first thing you should have done was to link to the it from Kongo language, which you didn’t. That also made it almost completely useless. But in general, if between two topics one is primary, there is no need for a dab page because a simple link from a note at the primary article – like the one I added to Kongo language – suffices. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Kongo language, the current target of Yombe languageYombe language, is truly the WP:PTOPIC, then this is a no-brainer delete per WP:ONEOTHER. If neither is primary, then it's a no-brainer move to the base title per WP:MALPLACED. I don't know enough about the topic to weigh in on which is preferable, but I don't see how there's really any other option here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And just to note, the current target really is one of the two entries at the current dab page, just piped. Also, redirecting as suggested would make no sense for a "(disambiguation)" titled page like this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunseeker Robotics

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

No indication of notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The only reliable, secondary coverage I could find of them is the cited Register review of one of their products. The rest of the coverage of them online is press releases. Previously tagged for proposed deletion; this was contested without comment by article creator. Wikishovel (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Wikishovel (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Artificial intelligence. jolielover♥talk 13:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikishovel, all the content is sourced from non-press-release websites, and they are all well-known sites (CNET, The Register, The Gadgeteer). None of the content involves participation from the brands, and it is all neutral information. Please review it again. Thank you. Leefranklawyer (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is WP:PROMO/WP:BROCHURE, unsuitable for Wikipedia. Jumpytoo Talk 08:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
update Leefranklawyer (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review it again. Thank you. Leefranklawyer (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Oswald, Ed (2024-09-10). "Sunseeker Orion X7 review: A great robot lawn mower with a subpar app". PC World. Archived from the original on 2025-11-24. Retrieved 2025-11-24.
  The review notes: "The Orion X7 is new, so there were bound to be some problems; every robot mower I’ve tested to date has had one quirk or another. It’s not impossible to set up, you just need to have some patience. And with any luck, it’s a process you might need to do just once. Problems of this nature are magnified at a mower at this price, because buying a higher-end robot mower brings higher expectations when it comes to babysitting the tool—and this toddler requires quality hands-on time at the outset. Every other element of the Sunseeker Orion X7—from its innovative floating cutting plates to its impressive AI and vision capabilities, which make it great for people who want to mow at night—is the best I’ve seen."
2. Hart, Spencer (2025-05-25). "I've been reviewing a GPS robot mower for a month – now I'll never mow my lawn manually again. After a month with the Sunseeker X5, my lawn looks like a golf course – and I haven't lifted a finger". Stuff.tv. Archived from the original on 2025-06-19. Retrieved 2025-11-24.
  The review notes: "For the past month, I’ve handed the job over to a robot – the Sunseeker Elite X5, to be precise – and it’s been quietly transforming my garden into something that looks professionally maintained. ... I’ve tested robot mowers before, including a Flymo that looked like a giant plastic pumpkin. The Sunseeker X5 is the opposite. It’s all clean lines, low profile, finished in black and grey – smart without being shouty. ... Of course, it’s not perfect. The biggest thing is that it doesn’t quite get to the very edges of the lawn, so you’ll still need a quick once-over with a strimmer every week or so. One morning, I got a notification saying the mower was stuck – it had dipped a wheel into a flowerbed and couldn’t find its way out. The issue wasn’t so much that it got stuck (we all have off days), but that it kept trying to free itself, spinning its wheels and gouging out a decent chunk of lawn in the process."
3. Speed, Richard (2025-11-01). "Robotic lawnmower uses AI to dodge cats, toys: The Sunseeker Elite X5 can mow on its own, but it doesn't come cheap". The Register. Archived from the original on 2025-11-24. Retrieved 2025-11-24.
  The review notes: "The tentacles of AI seem to be reaching everywhere, even to the humble lawnmower. We tested the Sunseeker Elite X5, a robotic mower that uses machine learning to steer around your lawn, to see what happens when artificial intelligence meets whirling blades of doom. ... In use, the X5 is quiet, effective, and efficient. While we couldn't help but hum the theme to Robocop while it did its thing, the resulting finish and stripes were impressive, although the need to set the cutting height manually is an annoyance, as is the requirement for two power sockets. The device is well-adapted for the UK climate and will return to its charger if it detects rain."
4. Prospero, Mike (2025-09-05). "The Sunseeker X3 Plus robot lawnmower has been trimming my yard all summer - 3 things I like and 1 I don't". Tom's Guide. Archived from the original on 2025-11-24. Retrieved 2025-11-24.
  The review notes: "The Sunseeker X3 Plus is a nice little robot lawnmower for those who have yards that aren’t too big or too steep. It’s easy to set up — I would never recommend buying a robot lawnmower that requires a boundary wire — and it did a good job at keeping my grass trimmed throughout the summer. Still, it’s not foolproof, as it got caught on what I thought were pretty low-profile obstacles. And, while I haven’t reviewed them, the Sunseeker X3 costs the same, or more than, other robot lawnmowers that are more capable on paper."
5. Carrick, Tony; Morgan, Kate (2025-06-02). "The 5 Best Robot Lawn Mowers Cut Grass Perfectly So You Don't Have To". Popular Mechanics. Archived from the original on 2025-11-24. Retrieved 2025-11-24.
  The review notes: "The Sunseeker L22 relies on ultrasonic technology and bumper sensors to weave around trees and avoid landscaping beds or other obstacles that might interrupt a rectangular mowing path. It even allows you to fine-tune how close it gets to obstacles as it works its way around them, so you can give delicate landscaping features a wide berth. If it does bump into something, it also has a safety mechanism that will halt the mower in its tracks."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Sunseeker brand to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I reframed the article to be about the brand, rather than the company, since the sources are about the brand. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This promotional page fails WP:SIGCOV. Aneirinn (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I maintain my delete vote above due to the WP:ADMASQ and likely WP:UPE by creator. Jumpytoo Talk 04:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zrinski College of Economics, Entrepreneurship and Management

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

Can't find any significant coverage for this group. Maybe articles on the constituent schools could be salvageable, but not this one. --Joy (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article a long time ago. It was probably a bit careless on my side as I was still very early on and experimented a bit more than now. I don't think I would create article about it today. However, that being said, I believe there may be a precedence to keep it. It is existing (or at least was at the time) and accredited private higher education institution in Croatia. I do not have strong preference about the outcome, but I can invest some time in this article if we decide to keep it (I apologise for not being able to commit during this discussion, I think I can invest limited time elsewhere more productively). I don't really want to deal with this topic, but if it is notable and we decide to keep it I can try to make it look a bit less basic.--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Croatia. Joy (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NB: this was previously discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College of Economics, Entrepreneurship and Management "Zrinski". --Joy (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of universities and colleges in Croatia#Private institutions – If the creator wants to work on the article, he could restore it in the future. Svartner (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insane (Black Gryph0n and Baasik song)

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

I don't think "Insane" is notable on its own. Most of the sources are just primary sources, which doesn't help it meet the notability criteria for songs. The song did chart, but charts are not an automatic golden ticket to notability. I would support an alternative to deletion, if any, but I would just outright delete this. RedShellMomentum ☎ 02:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. RedShellMomentum ☎ 02:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to fail WP:NSONG quite severely despite charting. Besides the one independent source currently in the article, I can find exactly one other independent and marginally reliable source that so much as mentions this song, which is this SEO bait-y article from Dot Esports. Falls well short of the NSONG's requirement for "significant coverage as the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- though current sourcing like this though seem SIGCOV as it focuses specifically on the lyrics itself. Aside from this seems scarce, suggesting a redirect to Alastor the Radio Demon as an ATD where this song is mentioned.Lorraine Crane (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alastor the Radio Demon. Notability for the song itself is not demonstrated by the sources or anything else I could find online, so redirecting to the character's page as an alternative to deletion seems like a good choice. death pact (again) 17:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tarini (Marathi TV series)

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

Procedural nomination. Article was created as a redirect by an editor now blocked for sockpuppetry, and has been widely edited by IPs/temp accounts. Multiple editors have edit-warred to keep this article as a redirect on the grounds of lack of notability. Per WP:BLAR, once a redirecting was objected to, AfD would be the next step, not edit-warring. This was listed at WP:RFPP as a request to protect the page as a redirect; I have chosen instead to restore the article and list it at AfD so the community can determine if it is notable and if it should be kept, deleted, or restored to a redirect. As this is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion on whether or not this article should be deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To the original series Jagaddhatri (TV series). The AfD is the correct route so thank you, The Bushranger. This program is one of many remakes of the original with editors putting up a WALLEDGARDEN in an attempt to show notability but notability is not inherent. There are a lot of sources shown but they are all churnalism based on promotion from Zee TV. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Lake (disambiguation)

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

unnecessary disambiguation page Joeykai (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, alternatively keep and move to Junior Lake, with the article currently at Junior Lake being moved to Junior Lake (baseball player) per WP:NOPRIMARY. However, AfD is not the venue for this, a WP:Requested move at Talk:Junior Lake (disambiguation) is. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 02:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Geography, Baseball, Canada, and Dominican Republic. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 02:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The baseball player was moved to the primary topic per Talk:Junior Lake#Requested move 22 December 2015 and the DAB page was moved. Since there is only one other topic, a hatnote is sufficient. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how a run-of-the-mill sportsball athlete with 4 years of major league tenure and who hasn't played in 9 seasons is a primary topic over a geographic feature. I think the issue should be revisited at the proper venue (RM); the previous one is 10 years old now. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 23:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 along with all other Canadian federal election results pages nominated together with this one. As participants on some of these AfDs pointed out, election results are not original research, even if the author failed to cite the relevant sources. Any SYNTH or OR content can be removed by editing. I see no support for the nomination in any of the AfDs included in this salvo. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian federal election results in Southern Durham and York

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

Fails WP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this... If we are going to have articles built around statistics we need to tell people where those statistics are coming from. WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 03:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reason as other repliers on similar AFD discussions. The nomination is simply wrong. This is not original research. If the nominator has another policy based reason for deletion, they should make that clear. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as a valid split of List of Canadian federal elections and as per Esolo5002. I now have to waste my time copy/pasting this to every single nomination, when a batch nomination should have been done for this.

―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 01:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, including all nominations below The articles have issues, but it's not difficult to find sources for any of this info. If this were original research, all election results pages would be treated the same (they aren't). aesurias (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Election results are not original research. The article title is a bit awkward, and we can make an argument that the scope should be shifted to all of Durham or York, or perhaps split up between the two regions, but the content itself should be kept. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:21, 2 December 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 along with all other Canadian federal election results pages nominated together with this one. As participants on some of these AfDs pointed out, election results are not original research, even if the author failed to cite the relevant sources. Any SYNTH or OR content can be removed by editing. I see no support for the nomination in any of the AfDs included in this salvo. Owen× ☎ 13:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian federal election results in the Côte-Nord and Saguenay

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

Fails WP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this... If we are going to have articles built around statistics we need to tell people where those statistics are coming from. WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 03:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reason as other repliers on similar AFD discussions. The nomination is simply wromg. This is not original research. If the nominator as another policy based reason for deletion, they should make that clear. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as a valid split of List of Canadian federal elections and as per Esolo5002. I now have to waste my time copy/pasting this to every single nomination, when a batch nomination should have been done for this.

―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 00:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I couldn't figure out how to do a bundled nom. Sorry for the complication.4meter4 (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Election results are not original research.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:16, 2 December 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 along with all other Canadian federal election results pages nominated together with this one. As participants on some of these AfDs pointed out, election results are not original research, even if the author failed to cite the relevant sources. Any SYNTH or OR content can be removed by editing. I see no support for the nomination in any of the AfDs included in this salvo. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian federal election results in Suburban Toronto

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

Fails WP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this... If we are going to have articles built around statistics we need to tell people where those statistics are coming from. WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 03:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reason as other repliers on similar AFD discussions. The nomination is simply wromg. This is not original research. If the nominator as another policy based reason for deletion, they should make that clear. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as a valid split of List of Canadian federal elections and as per Esolo5002. I now have to waste my time copy/pasting this to every single nomination, when a batch nomination should have been done for this.

―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 00:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Election results are not original research. An argument could be made to merge the content with the article on Central Toronto, but we shouldn't delete the content altogether. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:18, 2 December 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 along with all other Canadian federal election results pages nominated together with this one. As participants on some of these AfDs pointed out, election results are not original research, even if the author failed to cite the relevant sources. Any SYNTH or OR content can be removed by editing. I see no support for the nomination in any of the AfDs included in this salvo. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian federal election results in Southwestern Ontario

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

Fails WP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this... If we are going to have articles built around statistics we need to tell people where those statistics are coming from. WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 03:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reason as other repliers on similar AFD discussions. The nomination is simply wrong. This is not original research. If the nominator as another policy based reason for deletion, they should make that clear. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as a valid split of List of Canadian federal elections and as per Esolo5002. I now have to waste my time copy/pasting this to every single nomination, when a batch nomination should have been done for this.

―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 00:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Election results are not original research.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:17, 2 December 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 along with all other Canadian federal election results pages nominated together with this one. As participants on some of these AfDs pointed out, election results are not original research, even if the author failed to cite the relevant sources. Any SYNTH or OR content can be removed by editing. I see no support for the nomination in any of the AfDs included in this salvo. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian federal election results in Quebec City

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

Fails WP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this... If we are going to have articles built around statistics we need to tell people where those statistics are coming from. WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 03:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reason as other repliers on similar AFD discussions. The nomination is simply wromg. This is not original research. If the nominator as another policy based reason for deletion, they should make that clear. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all as a valid split of List of Canadian federal elections and as per Esolo5002. I now have to waste my time copy/pasting this to every single nomination, when a batch nomination should have been done for this.
―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 01:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Election results are not original research.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:16, 2 December 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 along with all other Canadian federal election results pages nominated together with this one. As participants on some of these AfDs pointed out, election results are not original research, even if the author failed to cite the relevant sources. Any SYNTH or OR content can be removed by editing. I see no support for the nomination in any of the AfDs included in this salvo. Owen× ☎ 13:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian federal election results in New Brunswick

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

Fails WP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this... If we are going to have articles built around statistics we need to tell people where those statistics are coming from. WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 03:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Something being unsourced not mean it's original research. This page just compiles results data by transcluding pages like Results of the 2021 Canadian federal election by riding#New Brunswick. The Votes by party over time is a simple WP:CALC of the numbers in the tables. Reywas92^Talk 14:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can support publishing original statistics not found in any sources. If you can point to where this data comes from that would be another matter, but as it is these numbers may be original. We don't publish unverified data.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers appear to come from Results of the 2021 Canadian federal election by riding#cite note-OfficialResults-8. It's also available from Elections Canada at [48] and other pages linked at [49] for other years. They're also available from CBC at [50]. It's unfortunate that these citations were not included when the results were posted after the election and they should be linked, but they are perfectly verifiable and there's no reason to believe someone just made them up. — Reywas92^Talk 19:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as a valid split of List of Canadian federal elections and as per Esolo5002. I now have to waste my time copy/pasting this to every single nomination, when a batch nomination should have been done for this.

―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 01:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Esolo5002's rationale (which wasn't pasted to this nomination) is The nomination is simply wromg. This is not original research. If the nominator as another policy based reason for deletion, they should make that clear. which I believe applies here as well.

―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 01:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Election results are not original research. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:09, 2 December 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 along with all other Canadian federal election results pages nominated together with this one. As participants on some of these AfDs pointed out, election results are not original research, even if the author failed to cite the relevant sources. Any SYNTH or OR content can be removed by editing. I see no support for the nomination in any of the AfDs included in this salvo. Owen× ☎ 13:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian federal election results in Eastern Quebec

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

Fails WP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this... If we are going to have articles built around statistics we need to tell people where those statistics are coming from. WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 03:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Something being unsourced not mean it's original research. This page just compiles results data by transcluding pages like Results of the 2021 Canadian federal election by riding#Eastern Quebec. The Votes by party over time is a simple WP:CALC of the numbers in the tables. Reywas92^Talk 14:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can support publishing original statistics not found in any sources. If you can point to where this data comes from that would be another matter, but as it is these numbers may be original. We don't publish unverified data.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can point to where this data comes from. I found https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=ele&dir=pas&document=ge&lang=e in about 15 seconds. You are welcome to add that. Several of the main election pages like 2006 Canadian federal election#Synopsis of results have tables with citations, and this has the same information. — Reywas92^Talk 19:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding all of the content/numbers we have at that website, but perhaps I'm not navigating to the right part of it? This doesn't seem to verify all of the ways we are presenting our content which again makes we wonder if some of the statiscal presentation isn't WP:SYNTH.4meter4 (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every riding's results are for every election is linked from there, like [51] from [52]. To see everything together for an election, there's the raw data: for the 2015 election you would select Table 12 on [53]. The numbers in the "Votes by party throughout time" table is obviously a simple sum of the party results in each election year table. Adding up numbers already on the page is not illegal synthesis. — Reywas92^Talk 19:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are still going back to the problem of pulling out PRIMARY data into original divisions. This is exactly the type of writing banned at WP:NOSTAT. We don't do this. We need to have some sort of structural organization based in WP:SECONDARY reporting, and frankly we cover each federal election better in numerous other articles (ie better sourced) than these. I'm not really seeing a good reason to keep these. 4meter4 (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is routine organization to subdivide a very long list, not original research. The data is not being manipulated beyond simple addition in the first table. This isn't indiscriminate or unexplained statistics, it's a compilation of election results. — Reywas92^Talk 04:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as a valid split of List of Canadian federal elections and as per Esolo5002. I now have to waste my time copy/pasting this to every single nomination, when a batch nomination should have been done for this. Esolo5002's rationale (which wasn't pasted to this nomination) is The nomination is simply wromg. This is not original research. If the nominator as another policy based reason for deletion, they should make that clear. which I believe applies here as well.

―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 01:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Election results are not original research.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:17, 2 December 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 along with all other Canadian federal election results pages nominated together with this one. As participants on some of these AfDs pointed out, election results are not original research, even if the author failed to cite the relevant sources. Any SYNTH or OR content can be removed by editing. I see no support for the nomination in any of the AfDs included in this salvo. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian federal election results in Eastern Montreal

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

Fails WP:No original research. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think we should be hosting content like this unless it is sourced. We have a lot of data here, some of which might be original analysis and not something officially published or taken from reliable materials. Like where is the votes by party throughout time coming from? We definitely could have an article here, but not like this... If we are going to have articles built around statistics we need to tell people where those statistics are coming from. WP:TNT it unless somebody can come along and verify this is accurate.4meter4 (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 03:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why not userfy back to the editor who created all these articles? They seem to be very knowledgeable about this subject and they might be able to provide sources @Amrcmln, but sparingly edit. Katzrockso (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Katzrockso: I'd be ok with that. Or a move to draft space. If they are rescuable, I'm all for saving them, and if time and space allow for a rescue we should support that. It might be best to require these go through WP:AFC.4meter4 (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no way that any of these are independently notable based on current sources, it seems like arbitrary subdivisions of politics and then electoral results based on that. But maybe allowing the user time to transfer it to wikiversity or something? I really doubt any of it is really wrong, per se. Katzrockso (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Something being unsourced not mean it's original research. This page just compiles results data by transcluding pages like Results of the 2021 Canadian federal election by riding#Eastern Montreal. The Votes by party over time is a simple WP:CALC of the numbers in the tables. Reywas92^Talk 14:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are original statistics not found in any sources, and with arbitrary regional division not supported in WP:RS. We don't support this because it is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.4meter4 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

original statistics not found in any sources oh really? It's not unreasonable to break up very long topics into subarticles, we don't need a source defining each exact division. — Reywas92^Talk 19:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact we do need sources discussing a topic directly and in detail. Breaking out statistical data in original ways, is in fact original analysis, which is WP:OR; particularly when analyzing WP:PRIMARY data which is what these websites are.4meter4 (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having one article with results from A, B, and C ridings and another article with results from X, Y, and Z ridings is not analysis or original research. — Reywas92^Talk 19:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.4meter4 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So there's no issue with a Canadian federal election results in Quebec page, but since that's too long to have in one article now there's a problem? We are allowed to use reasonable geographic regions to subdivide a topic. — Reywas92^Talk 20:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think we need to hear from some fresh voices. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as a valid split of List of Canadian federal elections and as per Esolo5002. I now have to waste my time copy/pasting this to every single nomination, when a batch nomination should have been done for this. Esolo5002's rationale (which wasn't pasted to this nomination) is The nomination is simply wromg. This is not original research. If the nominator as another policy based reason for deletion, they should make that clear. which I believe applies here as well.

―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 01:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Election results are not original research. Perhaps an argument can be made to combine all of Montreal together for one article, though historically Eastern Montreal votes very differently from the rest of the city, so the argument could be had that a separate article should exist.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @OwenX:. Any reason why this deletion discussion wasn't closed with the other nominations. Oversight or is this a non standard split that I'm missing? Esolo5002 (talk) 06:17, 3 December 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.

Jolleyville, Indiana

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

Another spot back-entered from the 1876 atlas, I'm just not getting anything here except for hits on places of the same name in other states. Mangoe (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not appear to be a real place. Aneirinn (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found, nothing located at the site at all, and the name doesn't appear on topo maps until 2010. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of turkey meat producing companies in the United States

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

No indication of notability or reception at all (WP:NLIST). A decent amount of these (not 100% sure about all of them) are WP:PROMO. Gommeh 📖 🎮 16:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United States of America. Gommeh 📖 🎮 16:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lists. Gommeh 📖 🎮 16:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NLIST. Google books has entire books devoted to turkey production in the United States. Clearly discussed in-depth in multiple reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE clearly was not done.4meter4 (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Creator User:Mckburton is a sock account. Much of this is WP:NOTPLOT. — Maile (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does WP:NOTPLOT have to do with a list of companies? That policy applies to articles on books, films, television shows, etc. Totally not relevant to this page. And many editors have contributed to this article in the ten years since Mckburton created the article, so that isn't relevant either. This isn't a valid deletion argument.4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that isn't a valid deletion rationale. Gommeh 📖 🎮 20:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nefarious plot concocted by the turkey companies. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NLIST. I trimmed the list, keeping only companies that have a standalone page. This should deal with WP:PROMO concerns. Kelob2678 (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be reasonable to add a reception section then, or something that discusses the list as a group? Gommeh 📖 🎮 20:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would be great, but I am not willing to do it[54]. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, makers by commodity are always grouped and reported in places, especially if the commodity's a popular one. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this turkey. The major (articled) producers can be mentioned in Poultry farming. Where are these alleged company lists by commodity? Not in Category:Lists of companies of the United States by industry (industry, not commodity). Where are the chicken lists, the pork lists, etc.? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement

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

This whole article is excessive and can be summarized in two or three paragraphs under Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#CF-35. IdanST (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First off, it's so poorly constructed it probably needs the WP:TNT treatment. Secondly, large portions of the article are nearly verbatim reprints of the source materials, to the point that I believe the article is riddled with possible WP:COPYVIO and needs a total re-write if it's to exist at all...though the easiest thing is that it should be condensed into a blurb in the CF-35 section per the nomination. nf utvol (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree the article can be improved but it should not be summarized. This is a large topic for Canadians whom use EN wikipedia ~2025-34693-37 (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve There is no need to delete this article. If a separate discussion results in the consensus that it should be summarized and re-incorporated into the main article then that can be done and this article would need to be turned into a redirect, with no deletion needed. Personally I think even a summarized and shortened version would still be too long to incorporate it into the main article and it would just need to be split out again. As the article itself notes, this has been a very complex and very long procurement process, a true Canadian national scandal (as stated by several of the cited refs) and it is not even over today. Right now only 16 F-35s have been ordered by Canada, none have been delivered, the whole purchase is under government review and may yet be terminated or modified. If anything the story documented here is continuing to get longer and more complex, not simpler and shorter. For that reason alone it should be kept and improved and not deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In a more general vein I think it is well past time that we stop deleting articles from Wikipedia, because all Wikipedia articles are now archived and available to the public forever, in this case:

Search engines already pick up links pointing to those articles, too.

What this means is that the article is never actually deleted, instead it is just frozen in time and cannot be edited ever again. That means that deleting articles is a worse outcome than fixing them and keeping them. - Ahunt (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really arguing that AfD shouldn't exist because archives exist? The vast, vast majority of people looking for information in Wikipedia aren't searching for old, deleted versions of pages in archives that aren't indexed in most search engines. Anyone likely to be pulling up deleted pages in archives are people actively searching for the deleted article, and are unlikely to be using it to obtain reliable information. nf utvol (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly I am pointing out that AfD and other deletion processes do not make articles go away, so the whole process is a bit misleading. They are never deleted, they live on, just in a form that cannot be edited any more. In practical terms I think this means that we should only be deleting articles in very clear cases of things like spam or hoaxes, otherwise, given realities, it makes much more sense to improve articles and continue to edit them, rather than "delete" them, rendering them basically immortal and untouchable instead. - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why would an editor ask for the deletion of this historically accurate article. There are multiple mainstream sources including the government of Canadas own web pages and reports.

The main reason I’d suggest an editor wants this deleted is because it make the current liberal government in Canada look like a total disaster. They cost Canadian tax payers $10’s of billions in extra costs for fewer aircraft. All because of a political decision. Only to chose the same aircraft they first rejected (because the previous conservative government chose the aircraft first!). This page needs maintaining because it show the depth of political interference and corruption for political purposes and the shear Incompetence of elected officials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-35702-12 (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Svartner (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Heavily discussed numerous reliable sources for a sustained period of time. Opinion pieces from the Toronto Star [55], Globe and Mail [56], CBC [57], CTV News [58], Reuters, [59], and more. All of these sources discuss changes only within the previous few months, in addition to the sustained coverage shown by the sources in the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperatorhobbes (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the comments supporting keeping of this article either presuppose notability or provide reasons that are not generally accepted at AfD. More discussion of how this topic meets our notability standards are needed; this can include whether or not the sources provided by Imperatorhobbes are sufficient for estasblishing notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With 292 cited references, almost all of which are accepted third party, independent reliable sources, I do not think that any argument can be made that this is not a notable subject. In fact the OP does not make that argument in the original deletion nomination. The nomination does not actually cite any policy reason for deletion and really amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As I contended above in my !vote and has been extensively discussed on the article's talk page, if anyone thinks this is too long, or too detailed, then the solution is "editing" not "deletion". Bottom line: there are several solid policy reasons to keep this and no policy-based reasons to delete it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Go Championship

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

Completely unreferenced. Not clear this passes WP:NEVENT/WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment w:zh:全国围棋个人赛 isn't much better in terms of sourcing, but it does have some examples of news coverage. "Chinese Go Championship" doesn't seem to be the usual English name for the 1957-to-present contest being described here (although it is used for a different contest); the literal translation National Go Individual (Competition) appears more common. Adam Sampson (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It certainly would have impacted my BEFORE search. I'll try hunting again under the correct name.4meter4 (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Results of the 2025 competition. In 2024, there was a controversy related to AI cheating. Announcement for the 2007 tournament. This archive link from the official website allows verify winners from 2005 to 2007. In 2025, the winner got ¥80,000, which is a bit more than $10,000. So, the claim of the $300 prize fund in the article is incorrect. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelob2678: Under what policy are you basing your keep vote? The first source is from Tencent QQ which is not a reliable publication. The second source from Sina Corporation seems fine. The third source is a press release and is not independent. And the last source is the organization's website which is also not independent. How does this pass WP:ORGCRIT (because this is an organization as well as a competition) or WP:EVENTCRIT? This is not demonstrating coverage that passes WP:SIGCOV requirements for organizations, events, or even the general notability guidelines. We need multiple independent sources with in-depth coverage.4meter4 (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tencent QQ is realiable, we have WP:RSCONTEXT. The third source is not press release. This competition should pass WP:GNG. In general, national level competition in a country with more than one billion people are notable.

For instance, the third source says The history of the Individual Championship can be traced back to 1957, spanning 50 years to date. Although it was interrupted for various reasons, and its current visibility is not as high as the Tianyuan or Mingren competitions, it is nonetheless China's longest-running Go tournament. The champions from the 50 years of the Individual Championship are displayed in the lobby of the host hotel in Dezhou. From Gu Tixing to Wang Xi, the Individual Championship has witnessed virtually the entire history of Go in the New China. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a query on Tencent QQ at the reliable sources noticeboard. Based on our description of the source at the Tencent QQ wikipedia article it appears that the website is a blog hosting platform that would be subject to WP:BLOG/WP:SELFPUBLISHED. It would therefor be unreliable. We'll see what editors have to say there. Perhaps I'm missing some sort of editorial oversight? I'll take your word on the other source. Usually I think of "announcement" as a press release, but in fact it wasn't an announcement but coverage of the opening day of the competition with some historical coverage of the event as a whole. That seems fine as well. That would be two sources that are usable. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That particular piece is a republication from foxwq, which, as I understand, is a Chinese site dedicated to Go[60]. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major incidents do get reporting in English Chinese media. [61][62] Without a proper WP:BEFORE search in Chinese-language sources, it's hard to say that WP:NEXIST isn't met. Not a policy-based reason, but this would be like the Chinese Wikipedia deleting the US Chess Championship because it doesn't get coverage in Chinese-language sources. Go/Weiqi is very popular there. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 08:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Recognized Training Base – Port Alberni

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

I believe this article should be deleted because it is being used for promotion. It also fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). Looking at Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria, it fails all the required points there as there is no certainty this event will happen. The notability also fails the requirements for WP:CRYSTAL (the very last sentence of the article is "As of November 2025, the site is still on FIFA's official list and waiting for a team to pick it". To me that means there is still a chance that the facility doesn't get picked.) The event itself is merely a potential training base in Port Alberni. The article itself really says nothing about the training base. There is a bunch of fluff to try and build the article up. Merely a sentence or two at Port Alberni#Sports should be sufficient for the potential event and there is already that there. This is not a stand alone article. Not even close. It should be deleted. I had thought about a bold merge but if no team choses this location, then it'll have to be removed from the Port Alberni page (as it wouldn't have happened). Better if this article gets deleted and if that location is picked, a bit more can be added to the Port Alberni page. Masterhatch (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Canada. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 01:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi Masterhatch, I am the one who wrote the article (Abujahangir and Abuhasanjahangir, COI disclosed on my user page – I helped with the Port Alberni bid). This is not just a “maybe” thing. FIFA already accepted Port Alberni as an official training site (as pre-tournament and acclimatization training camp) in July 2025 and sent people here to check the stadium and hotels. It's the a national federation's choice which city they will stay prior to tournament begin not FIFA. FIFA will be a party for signing the contract between Port Alberni and the World Cup participating nation. Local news wrote about it several times (Alberni Valley News, CHEK, Times Colonist). You and other editors are welcome to redress. I will do few more work when I will have some more words and arts to include once I will have some more idea on presentation. I think it is okay to have its own page because it is an official FIFA-recognized place, not just a dream. If a team picks it later, we can add more. As I informed you several time I take some assistance of AI but not let AI to write it. Happy to fix anything you think still looks wrong. Thanks. — Abujahangir (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No team has picked the site. How is that notable? Even if a team does pick the site, I still fail to see how it is notable. It is a potential training ground, not an actual game location. A brief mention at Port Alberni is all it deserves. Beyond that, it is all promotion. And Wikipedia is quite clear regarding promotion. Masterhatch (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn’t about a team picking it later — it’s that FIFA already recognized Port Alberni in July 2025 as Canada’s only non-host-city training site. FIFA sent scouts, listed it officially, and local news covered it several times. That selection already happened and is notable. Article is now short and clean, no promo left. If no team picks it → we merge the info to Port Alberni page in 2026. If a team does pick it → we can rename the page to something like “FIFA 2026 Training Base – Port Alberni”. Either way, deleting it today throws away good sources for no reason. Appreciate your support to find the notability reason. Thanks. — Abujahangir (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don't need articles for training bases for the World Cup, as they won't have WP:LASTING coverage beyond the next year. Even if some teams do base themselves there, that doesn't warrant a separate article on the base anyway, as the bases chosen for teams are relatively poorly covered compared to everything else they do like the squads and matches. Which is the reason why we've never had an article on a World Cup training base before. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All coverage seems to be from the event of FIFA visiting/picking the facility and while there are some discussions about the facility itself, without coverage independent of this selection event this article should be deleted. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I understand the delete votes — it feels like nothing big has happened yet because no team has picked us. But the big thing already happened: in July 2025 FIFA checked our stadium and hotels, gave the green light, and putting Port Alberni as the only non-host city in Canada and green lights for completing due diligence. 42 Teams will decide within January 2026, but the FIFA approval is real now and already in the news. We have started calling national teams. After Friday we do the second round and narrow it down. We are also talking to BC Soccer about bringing the 2028 provincial championships here (Richmond had it this year, Kamloops and Nanaimo are next, we want our turn after that). The same field will be used for bigger tournaments later. In the USA and Mexico they already have many training sites ready. In Canada the main stadiums (BC Place, BMO, etc.) so as Port Alberni are still being fixed up right before the World Cup. You know the local government supports to be on the same is most crucial which Port Alberni - you can verify the local governments council, board meeting minutes or videos. The article is short, only facts, no big words. I will add more newspaper stories in the next month or two when they come out. If no team comes, we can move the info to the Port Alberni page later. Deleting everything today just throws away what already happened. Thanks for reading. — Abujahangir (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abujahangir: Three things: 1) you've already "!voted" so you do not need to state "keep" in bold text again; instead you can use "comment" or nothing at all. 2) Everything written in a Wikipedia article needs to be verifiable as soon as it's live. "I will add more later" is a classic argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. 3) Who is "we" that you speak of? Do you have a conflict of interest with this subject? ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 06:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GhostOfDanGurney, thanks for the note.

(1) Got it – no more bold Keep, just a comment now.

(2) Understood, I’m not using “more refs later” as an excuse. The article already has live with three working news links (Times Colonist, Alberni Valley News, CHEK). More will come, but it’s not empty now.

(3) Yes, full COI – I’m on the Port Alberni 2026 organizing committee (already written on my user page and said in every post here). “We” is the local bid team. Happy to answer anything else. — Abujahangir (talk)

Mailtrаp

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

Entirely promotional and appears to fail WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The sourcing isn't the worst I've seen. It scrapes by on notability, but if there is no one interested in fixing the promotional tone, then we're better off saying no thanks to this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the page in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Gnatperch (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I removed the promotional elements from the text. Gnatperch (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a WP:COI to declare here? - Amigao (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, and Ukraine. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 01:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The title gaming ("a" in title is actually CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER A, U+0430) to evade G4 does not look good here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coupler.io

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

Entirely promotional and appears to fail WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, and Ukraine. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 01:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artificial intelligence-related deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 02:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Heavy promo language and no indication of significance aesurias (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both this Railsware should be deleted, NOTADVERTISING. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed the advertising elements from the article, and now the article can be saved. Gnatperch (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a WP:COI to declare here? - Amigao (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Railsware

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

Entirely promotional and appears to fail WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Ukraine. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 01:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Could not find any evidence this or Coupler.io are suitable, and current incarnation need to be blown up regardless. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article has been substantially rewritten to remove promotional language and to align with Wikipedia’s content policies. The current version follows WP:NPOV, avoids marketing-style descriptions, and relies on independent, reliable sources. Gnatperch (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a WP:COI to declare here? - Amigao (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Among 17 sources in the article 1. Lacks sigcov. 2. Podcast with the CEO. 3. Database-like entry ranking the company 1,607 out of 5,000 on a list. 4. Company's blog. 5. List of 20 companies. 6. List of 100+ companies. 7. Database-like entry from a site dedicated to software outsourcing companies. 8. 72 minute podcast, didn't listen 9. Lacks sigcov. 10. Podcast with the CEO. 11. About product. 12. About product. 13. About product. 14. 404 15. 404 16. Lacks sigcov. 17. The same as the 5th. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]