Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/France

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shellwood (talk | contribs) at 11:29, 21 November 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Parallel_Tales (assisted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to France. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|France|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to France. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for France related AfDs

Scan for France related Prods
Scan for France related TfDs


France

Parallel Tales

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

Does not meet WP:NFF, production has not met notability guidelines, draft already exists and has been declined AFC BOVINEBOY2008 09:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good coverage from Variety and ScreenDaily, also seeing more sources such as the Tehran Times [1] and The Hollywood Reporter [2]. I know it's not even out yet, but if sources are already covering it to this degree, I think we can call it a GNG pass and let it develop more once it comes out. MediaKyle (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Asghar_Farhadi#Filmography: With NFF, the commencement of principal photography is only the threshold at which we can begin to consider if an unreleased film is notable. An unreleased film isn't notable because it has begun. I searched for sourcing under both titles and offhand, the coverage is fairly sporadic. There were some announcements before filming began, but there hasn't been any in-depth coverage of the actual filming. Now, an additional issue here is that the coverage appears to be your typical "we got a press release this month and we're going to put out an article based on that" type of coverage. You can even see that the coverage is primarily during two months: April and September, primarily April. There's not really a huge amount of discussion or coverage that you would see with some of the more major films.
The general rule of thumb with NFF is that the coverage must be heavy enough to where the production could be notable if everything were to come to a screeching halt and the film never released. It's not uncommon for this to happen, even with films that seemed to be all but guaranteed to release. Right now the coverage for this isn't heavy enough to show notability in the here and now. I think that a redirect with history to the director's article is the best bet. This can be restored once more coverage comes about, which will most likely be when it releases and gets some reviews. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:28, 24 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) 12:32, 28 November 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 redirect to House of Valois. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

House of Valois family tree

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

This article been sitting for days without any sources, and there's been no attempt to add any. Previously draftified, but the creator moved it back to mainspace without changing anything. aesurias (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Divine

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Almost all of the sources serve just to document specific pieces of information and don't mention Mr. Divine at all or only briefly. Most of the personal information about him is not sourced at all, or only a source that is associated with him(like his company website). The information about his language skills is sourced to the people who educated him- just documentation that provides no information(as one example)

It is entirely possible that the Reconnect organization/movement he founded is notable, or even his films(like the one selected by film festivals that merit articles). But when the unsourced information and information about his movement is stripped out, not much is left other than the fact he hangs out with celebrities who support his movement, but notability is not inherited by association(and, again, would be more relevant to his movement than him personally). Some sources are interviews and thus not independent.

This draft was created by an account by the name Cdlosangeles; the Cd strongly implies they are Mr. Divine themselves. They have denied this, but given what they wrote and their comments(most of which are AI written), I still believe it may be. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Film, Entertainment, and United States of America. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence of Reliable Independent Coverage
    Below is a selection of independent secondary sources with significant coverage of Cliff Divine or his work. This list includes more than thirty television news segments across major US networks where he is clearly identified on air.
    Television Coverage (Independent Broadcast Sources)
    ABC7 News San Francisco
    ABC Action News Florida
    ABC News Orlando
    CBS Orlando
    CBS Pittsburgh
    NBC Sioux Falls
    NBC Orlando
    KUTV 2 Utah
    KHON2 Hawaii
    KTVB 7 Boise
    Q2 News Montana
    WKMG News 6 Orlando
    KTVA Alaska
    WESH 2 Orlando
    And many others
    These are full broadcast news reports featuring him as the central on-screen subject.
    Print and Online Coverage (Independent Secondary Sources)
    Orlando Sentinel
    Local and regional US newspapers
    International press outlets
    Film festival programs and award announcements
    These collectively satisfy WP:BIO and WP:GNG.
    A complete link to the full collection of thirty plus news segments was provided above and shows verified, on-air identification of the subject by major network journalists. Cdlosangeles (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    His name being mentioned on air doesn't make him notable. I reiterate- his movement/organization may be notable, but not him personally. I suggest that you write about his organization instead. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the article. I would like to clarify several points, because some of the comments above include assumptions that do not match the facts.
1. Cliff Divine and Andrew Cliff Tisba are the same person.
This can be verified through interviews, festival materials, and nonprofit records. Since both names refer to the same individual, all references to him under either name are valid for establishing notability. Several news pieces refer to him as Cliff Divine while others refer to him by his birth name, and they all point to the same person.
2. The article includes many independent reliable secondary sources that focus directly on Mr. Divine.
There is coverage from ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Orlando Sentinel, KHON2, KTVB, KUTV, Q2 Billings, and international outlets. These are not small mentions. They are full news stories where he appears as the central subject. Film festivals and award committees have also published coverage that includes him in a principal role.
3. A link has been provided that contains more than thirty television news segments from major networks where Cliff Divine is clearly identified by name on air.
These are verified broadcasts, publicly aired, and independent of him. This constitutes significant coverage by reliable independent sources under WP:BIO.
4. The majority of the sources are fully independent journalism.
These materials come from established newsrooms that operate with editorial oversight. They are not self published and not produced or controlled by the subject. They satisfy the independence and reliability standards required for a biographical article.
5. Notability is supported by coverage of his acting awards and his public work.
He has been recognized at film festivals, appears in national and international news stories, and is repeatedly covered for his multistate public initiative. This meets the definition of significant coverage from multiple independent secondary sources.
6. For clarity, I am not Cliff Divine, the subject of the article.
I am commenting here solely to correct factual inaccuracies. Wikipedia asks participants to avoid personal speculation about editors. The discussion should remain focused on the article content and the sources, not on assumptions about who may be editing.
7. Regarding @331dot
I want to acknowledge that @331dot has been helpful in pointing out technical copyright issues related to images. I am working on those with Commons. However, it feels disproportionate that after helping remove all images I spent hours organizing, there is now also a push from him/her to delete the entire article I spent months building with independent sources. I am raising this only to highlight how important it is to keep the focus on policy and content rather than escalating toward removing the whole subject. The notability question should be evaluated strictly based on the independent sources presented.
In summary, the subject is covered in a large number of independent reliable secondary sources, including more than thirty television news segments and multiple print and online publications. These meet the requirements of WP:BIO and support keeping the article. Cdlosangeles (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)— Cdlosangeles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Copyright violations are not a "technical issue", but a serious matter that puts Wikipedia in legal jeopardy if allowed to persist. Most images found on the internet-including stills from TV broadcasts- are not suitable for use on Wikipedia.
Quite frankly, this article is so glowing in its praise of Mr. Devine that if you aren't him or don't work for him, he should hire you. Most of his personal information is unsourced- where did you get this information? The citations in the Artistry section are largely to the website of people who worked with him- they don't provide significant coverage of him or even say what is claimed- such as "Cliff Divine studied for three months at Identity School of Acting in Los Angeles, founded by Femi Oguns, whose alumni include John Boyega and Letitia Wright." The two sources don't even mention Mr. Devine.
As I said, his organization may very well be notable. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section about Memory Studios is only sourced to the Memory Studios website and his IMDB entry on Amazon(IMDB is user-generated and not considered a reliable source) and should just be removed. The other citations in that section just document the existence of his work. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @331dot for raising the copyright concerns. I want to clarify that I have already started working on the image and licensing issues. The process is ongoing, and I would have appreciated the opportunity to address these concerns before every file was removed. I understand the importance of copyright compliance, and I intend to fully resolve that part of the article.
Regarding the content itself, the focus of the AfD should be the independent secondary sources, many of which come from established broadcasters with full editorial oversight. These sources provide significant and repeated coverage over several years. The issues you pointed out about certain biographical details or non-independent references are already being reviewed and can be adjusted. These are normal improvements, not reasons to remove the entire subject.
I would genuinely appreciate support in improving what has taken months to assemble, rather than seeing everything removed in a matter of days. Collaboration is what strengthens articles, and many of the concerns you mentioned can be fixed through normal editing. I am committed to addressing them.
I hope we can focus on constructive improvement instead of rapid removal. If there are specific areas where you believe revisions would be beneficial, I am open to working on them. My intention is to follow policy and build a solid, well-sourced article, and your help in that process would be welcome. Cdlosangeles (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violations cannot be allowed to stand for even one second. Wikipedia must make every effort to remove them or it is at risk of legal action, if not in this specific case, in other cases. If you have copyright-compliant images, you are free to upload those. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Entirety of "Personal life and philosophy" section has no sourcing or no relevant sourcing; entirety of "Immigration struggles and the American dream" is unsourced and the sources there aren't about subject. Same with "Recognition and honors" section and those are only the three I looked at closely. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG at all. The whole article reads like an AI bot wrote it, which I know the nom brought up concerns about the user Cdlosangeles being AI - I feel the same looking at this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:BIO for the subject. Also, this is an autobiography. 🦆 Mike Allen 21:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – while there are a ton of sources here, many of them are either primary sources or do not prove anything about the article's subject (for instance, it may look like this source is being used to prove Divine studied under Jack Garfein, but there is zero mention of Divine there). It is possible that Divine is notable, but unfortunately, the flood of irrelevant sources makes it impossible to tell – if that is the case, WP:TNT applies. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional autobiography authored by the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Wom (talk • contribs)
Delete.. Everyone else is saying that NewestPiano (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly created by someone who should have at least taken it through AfC, but also should have read some of the policy pages. Most is sourced to his own work, and often on Youtube or his own site "reconnect." They also make the beginner mistakes of saying "he did Y" and then linking to "Y" not to a source that backs the assertion. I removed the Youtube and some other unusable sources. It may be easier to see what reliable sourcing is there, if any. There is discussion at User_talk:Cdlosangeles, the SPA who created this, that makes it pretty clear that there is COI. I'll try to go through some sources to see if GNG can be supported. Lamona (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Complex/Rational 22:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Truchelut

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

Very thin sourcing; of the two citations, one seems to be a blog. If this does warrant an article it would be more likley to be for the event, not the person. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are unknown (what is Come4news ?), not accessible (once uve clicked the Waybackmachine link, it answers this: Hrm. The Wayback Machine has not archived that URL.). One of the "sources" is "Gates of Vienna", their page says "At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-33910-59 (talk)

Delete per nom basically. I can't find much online, and what I can find is far from reliable. WP:PSEUDO Polygnotus (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Gittard

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

Fails GNG and WP:NBIO. There's no biography or career section as well, only a section for filmography (which only has one entry) and their TV work. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:02, 12 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) 19:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is currently written this seems to fail notability. He isnt the focus of any news articles or independent pages that I could find. Bgrus22 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing about this person in French media. Most are tv show listings/cast credit lists. This was about the only one in a RS [3], it's literally his name in a list of credits for an episode. I don't see a French wiki article, so that's no help. I had to try a .fr Google search, and the link I gave only comes up after about 15 pages... There isn't anything to be found that we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Hammett-Jamart

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

Insufficient depth of coverage from reliable sources; most of the sources listed are mentions or written by the subject. A Sunday Telegraph article from 1991 is referenced, but it doesn't appear to be available anywhere. Likely undisclosed COI editing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie. Interesting. Did I miss something? The article seems to have a bucket-load of independent sources. Copy/Paste here below:
References
~2025-32325-56 (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to copy/paste all of the references that are already in the article. Please re-read what I wrote above; nearly all of the references are either articles written by the subjects or just links to film listings; for example, this link from screenaustralia.gov.au is simply a listing of a film by the subject. I don't see any third-party reliable sources that have in-depth coverage of the subject. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite the grand claims of the article, she only gets 2 google news hits. Lacking coverage to meet WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO, and some serious WP:COI concerns here. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. I’m a new user so I hope it is OK to join the discussion here (new to wikipedia but experienced at editing text). Am I right in thinking that this article is not a new wikipedia entry (history tab shows entries dating back about 8 years)? Also looks like it has had more than 20 contributors, which suggests a certain level of neutrality.
    I was checking out the Wikipedia deletion policy, and found this: “If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page”. So just wondering whether improving the article might be an important first step (and may be more consistent with Wikipedia policy)?
    A quick search brings up quite a few sources sources that could be added to improve this article. For instance, I found this reference, which is a third party, independent article with depth of coverage from a reliable source: https://comm.ku.dk/calendar/2019/european-film/
    I'm guessing there are probably more. Don't know for sure but could try. ~2025-32854-94 (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A guest lecturer mentioned in a university press release is a long way from showing notability... None of these are helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that despite the request to join the discussion as a new user, this appears to be the same editor that dropped the three lists of references hatted above. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wouldn't pass academic notability [4] with a sub 100 citations... a regular Gsearch brings up social media, LinkedIn, Imdb, then off a cliff for RS. There just isn't enough here to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't feel I can responsibly close this discussion as a Delete without at least a minimum investigation into all of these sources dumped into this discussion. There are a ton so a source assessment doesn't need to be comprehensive but at least a summary of sources would help out here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As other users have already pointed out, the subject of this article does not seem very notable (hence the only 2 google news hits) and does seem to show some signs of COI. I say this because, if a Wikipedia user woke up one day and decided to write a new article and contribute to the overall internet literacy of the world, why, of all things would they write about Julia Hammett-Jamart? Poland44444444 (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A quick look at her profile on IMDB shows only seven films over 35 years and most of them shorts. This doesn't help her notability and in that regard this article (taking into account the COI issue) could well be nothing more than an advertisement for her. I don't know that for sure though which is why I'm not going speedy delete. Not a notable person. Curly Suix (talk) 07:47, 28 November 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emīls Ģēģeris

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG with most sources I found being pure primary or stats websites that have many notable players. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Aguemon

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

Low-level football player in Europe. I looked at every result on Google and could not locate any SIGCOV. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to List of Polish models. now that it exists (thank you). Arguments against retention do not make the case that Zuk shouldn't be covered somewhere, rather that she shouldn't have a standalone article. Arguments for retention are not backed with sourcing to support it. Star Mississippi 23:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Zuk

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

Article sourced to Evertise AI PR, blogs, listings and paid promotions, the subject - a Polish model, fashion influencer, entrepreneur, and philanthropist - fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This was the best I could find -24hip-hop.com/eva-zuk-the-multi-faceted-maven-of-beauty-intellect-and-philanthropy/, not sure it's a RS. Most of the sources in the article aren't ranked by Cite Highlighter, FHM looks to be the best, but it's still not enough. The source I found is on the wiki black list, so it's not a valid source... Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per above. :Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 15:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She has appeared on the cover of various magazines, such as FHM India [12] with an article all about her: [13]. I think a prominent article on the person in a widely read publication is good evidence of notability so I've stopped looking - however, there are other magazines shown on her Instagram page (which has 1.4 million followers) if folks wish to check further [14]. SilkTork (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    one magazine source isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 18:11, 6 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! 20:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was merge. The discussion since the last relist is about a proposed merge. This discussion should take place as a WP:PROM at Talk:Raëlian beliefs and practices. (non-admin closure) 11WB (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geniocracy

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

I found this page from the recently deleted page Noocracy and I was thinking they could be combined but as I did more research into this page I found that there aren't independent sources to back it up. I think a redirect to Raëlism or perhaps some amount of merging should be done instead of purely deleting the page. You can find the amazing Aliens Adored book to read the only major source I could find about the topic and its pretty light itself. Moritoriko (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote keep, as the person who tagged this with "sources exist", but the article isn't in a great state, so I would also be fine with merge. Aliens Adored does have sigcov of the idea, but there is also sigcov in several other books in academic journals, like Alien Worlds [15], The New Heretics [16] (same author as Aliens Adored but worth considering in combination) Urban's 2015 book [17], a full page in Mayer's 1993 book [18] analysing the idea, this article [19]. Lots of other shorter mentions too [20] [21] [22] [23]
This idea also garnered the Raelians specific criticism and was involved in some of their legal proceedings, and is the main reason they lost a pretty big court case I believe [24] [25] lots of news coverage that mentions it [26], criticism in various anti-cult books e.g. [27]
All in all, it does pass GNG, but the article isn't very good so a redirect/merge wouldn't be a horrible idea. Strongly oppose deletion proper. Note: in French, which most coverage on the Raelians is in, it is "géniocratie", so if anyone would like to do a further search you should try that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned I think deletion should be off the table but I think that this article which tries to exist half about the book with the same title, and half about the system (which only appears in relation to Raelians) is giving undue weight to something that is a small facet of their beliefs and un-used by anyone else. Moritoriko (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also thanks for finding french sources. Moritoriko (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't object much to a merge, but I do think it technically passes GNG. It's close enough where there is wiggle room per WP:PAGEDECIDE, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus yet here. A Merge looks possible but without a target article agreement, Keep is a safer choice. But maybe a consensus will emerge over the next week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Merging this page with Rael(ism) would remove the detail of the page due to the nessecary summarisation of merging. Zxilef (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD has been open for a significant amount of time. There was no further discussion after @Liz relisted a fortnight ago and only one !vote for keep in the past week. There looks to be either a very slim consensus for keeping the article or no consensus at all. This will be the third and almost certainly, the final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for merge target: Moritoriko (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA @Zxilef @Metallurgist, In order to keep this from closing as no-consensus I thought I'd try to have a further discussion here and ping yall.
Moritoriko (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page is fairly long, and would have to be summarised. It could also be adopted by movements that are not related to Raelism due to its basic principles. Zxilef (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, that was vauge. Detail that could be lost is: Justifying the method of selection, and See also. Zxilef (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you for adding some concrete things that you are worried about. I agree about the Justifying section, however I think the See also section is too broad as it is and would trim it down regardless of keep/merge result here. Moritoriko (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection. I didnt specify a target for m/r. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated and expanded the section in Raëlian beliefs and practices about geniocracy as if I were to merge it. Please have a look and let me know what you think. Moritoriko (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still vote keep but the beliefs and practices article is fine I guess. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 03:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Goffi

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

Subject doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Military, and France. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per the coverage below, the subject meets WP:GNG:
    • 462 words of coverage: Guérin, Emmanuel (30 August 2011). ""Ouvrir le débat sur la morale des armées"". La Provence (in French).
    • Some independent coverage of him (the rest of the article is an interview): "DRONES on the battlefield". Winnipeg Free Press. 28 January 2015.

      Emmanuel Goffi has dedicated his life to examining the ethics of the use of force -- first as an officer in the French air force for 22 years, now as a doctoral student and University of Manitoba lecturer in the Centre for Defence and Security Studies. Goffi will be speaking Friday on drones and the future of war during the 31st annual U of M Political Studies Students' Conference running today through Friday. The forum on politics, defence and security will have as its focus, "The Legacy of Great Wars: Marking History and Humanity."

    • Around 223 words of coverage on him: "Interview - Emmanuel R. Goffi". E-International Relations. 21 February 2016. Retrieved 26 October 2025. [Removed quote.]
    • At least 34 words of coverage on him: Manroubia-Porteous, Jean-Baptiste (2018). La Persistance du Recours à la Force à Travers la légitime défense Internationale: Le Cas de la légitime défense Internationale Invoquée Contre des Actes de Terrorisme (in French). Paris: L'Harmattan. ISBN 9782140057700. Retrieved 26 October 2025.

      Emmanuel Goffi est un capitaine de l'armée de l'air française , spécialiste des études de sécurité et des relations internationales . Il est actuellement enseignant chercheur à l'Université de Manitoba au Canada et chercheur associé au...
      Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The text from E-International Relations appears to just be a standard biographical note that would often be provided by the author or based on what their own institutional profile page says about them, rather than being written independently by a journalist. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck accordingly. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Winnipeg Free Press dedicated only one introductory sentence to Goffi. Excerpt from Google Books continues as follows, associé au Centre d'Études et de Relations Internationales de Sciences Po Paris . 20 Voir extra p . 131 . 21 Voir extra p . 131. Le réalisme , en tant que grand courant théorique et paradigme dominant ... This is probably just a footnote that explains who the author of a cited work is. The first reference is unavailable, so it cannot be checked. I didn't find any reviews for the book for which he was the single author. His citation count is rather low, mostly due to works focused on AI ethics. The references in the article are either to Goffi himself or return 404. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure sure how I would be able to show the extent of the coverage in the La Provence article without it being a copyright violation but it certainly contains in-depth coverage of him. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that I had no opinion on whether that source counts towards GNG. But even if it does, one source is not enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final attempt for quorum.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:11, 14 November 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.



Others

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/France&oldid=1323381738"