User:CAPTAIN RAJU/AFD

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 04	August 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Zeleros

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. This has already been WP:G11ed earlies and the present form is neither but here for WP:ADVERTISEMENT only. Agent 007 (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Spain. Agent 007 (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

MobileX

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

Fails WP:NCORPS. Lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 15:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 15:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep – The article has been significantly improved since the AfD nomination. It now includes additional reliable, third-party sources such as CNET and the Orange County Business Journal, which offer independent coverage of MobileX. Based on these sources, the subject appears to meet both WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Edits have also been made to improve neutrality and tone. Open to continued collaboration to further strengthen the article. Tbenny (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Neither of those sources show that this company meets GNG. The CNET article contains a two-sentence-long mention of this company. And that Orange County Business Journal article is primary. I also noticed you added this promotional article ([1]) which should not be used for notability. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 21:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, this is very helpful feedback. I've edited to replace the CNET and Orange County Business Journal articles and removed the Android Guys article. I also added info on availability as well as some additional references from Bloomberg and How-To Geek. Please let me know what other edits I should incorporate to meet the community’s expectations for verifiability and notability. Tbenny (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Aristide Sartor

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only reference is a database and all I could find in a BEFORE were some mentions and hits on unrelated people. A redirect to France at the 1948 Summer Olympics may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. Let'srun (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Grand Sierra Resort shooting

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, United States of America, and Nevada. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Samir Qasim

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only references are databases and a search on both the internet archive and google came up empty. A redirect to Iraq at the 1980 Summer Olympics, with a hat note to his 1984 Olympic participation, may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Iraq. Let'srun (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

2025 Anaconda shooting

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, United States of America, and Montana. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Swati Chaturvedi

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

The article creator is blocked. The current references do not provide any in-depth information (also, please see WP:SIGCOV) about the subject. Baqi:) (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Baqi:) (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Dalin (hygiene)

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

No sources cited and a WP:BEFORE does not show that sources exist for this brand Mekomo (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, and Turkey. Mekomo (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Marthoma Senior Secondary School, Kozhencherry

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Not notable. Unreliable sourcing. Behappyyar (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Gruha Jyoti

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

Article appears to rely heavily on hallucinated citations, suggesting it was created with AI. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep: probably needs a rewrite/draft, but it's a thing that exists [2], [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
With full respect here, given the sheer number of AI sources, (at least a few dozen), I feel a WP:TNT is in order. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Ethiopian Air Lines Flight 372

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. [4] [5] I did manage to find a court case document regarding a "Workmen's Compensation" dispute (Maria D. HALLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Respondent.),^[1] but beyond that, there was also no coverage of the court case in secondary sources. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Ethiopia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

References

^ "In this Workmen's Compensation proceeding brought by Maria D. Hallock, appellant, the sole disputed question is who was the employer of the deceased, Thomas P. Hallock, at the time of his death on July 15, 1960. Appellant claims he was an employee of respondent, Trans World Airlines (TWA). The respondent claims he was always an employee of Ethiopian Air Lines (EAL) and had never been a TWA 637*637 employee. The referee and the Industrial Commission ruled that he was not an employee of TWA and denied compensation. On appeal, the circuit court affirmed."

Dynamic imaging

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

"Dynamic imaging" is a vague term used across multiple unrelated domains, lacking a clear/unified encyclopedic definition. The current article is unreferenced apart from a single promotional source (a few appear to have been added and removed throughout the years). There’s no continuity of meaningful edits or content worth preserving, it’s had nearly 2 decades to develop into something encyclopedic and hasn’t. At this point, it’s more constructive for us to "blow it up" and start over clean. If someone wants to rebuild an article (or multiple) on the term later based on independent, secondary sources, they can start fresh with a better-defined scope. Mooonswimmer 13:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Results of the 2005 Quebec municipal elections in Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine

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

https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/dataset/resultats-des-elections-municipales-generales/resource/de7c5891-aeb2-4c54-b13e-3bd3fd89fe61 is not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Results of the 2005 Quebec municipal elections in Estrie

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

https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/dataset/resultats-des-elections-municipales-generales/resource/de7c5891-aeb2-4c54-b13e-3bd3fd89fe61 does not prove notability Chidgk1 (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Results of the 2005 Quebec municipal elections in Côte-Nord

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

The only website I was able to find was https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/fr/dataset/resultats-des-elections-municipales-generales but that is not enough to prove the subject is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Results of the 2005 Quebec municipal elections in Chaudière-Appalaches

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

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Silver Oaks International School - Bachupally Campus, Hyderabad

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

No indication of notability for this school. Fram (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Telangana. Fram (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concern regarding notability. However, this page was originally created several years ago without proper structure or strong sources. I have recently taken the initiative to restructure and improve the article with more reliable references and factual information.

I kindly request some additional time to add independent and verifiable sources (such as media coverage, third-party reports, and other reliable publications) to strengthen the notability of the article. Deletion at this stage might be premature, given the work in progress.

Thank you for considering this request. Deepak Muthyam (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Draftify the above seems paraphrased from AI because it is quite general. There are no reliable sources that exist in english, however there might be something in telegu so I think we should give deepak the benefit of the doubt.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Results of the 2005 Quebec municipal elections in Centre-du-Québec

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

The only website I was able to find was https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/fr/dataset/resultats-des-elections-municipales-generales but that is not enough to prove the subject is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Results of the 2005 Quebec municipal elections in Capitale-Nationale

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

Iam not competent to assess cites on French article but this seems unlikely to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete all This really should have been a bundled nomination for closely related articles so this vote applies to all of them. We do not typically include historical officeholders and comprehensive election results for very small entities – neither the local councilors nor their elections are notable. Reywas92^Talk 15:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Xiaomi MIX Fold 4

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

Just another phone that exists. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails general notability criteria. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and China. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Idil Ibrahim

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

Non notable filmmaker/actor. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Claimed award is not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Princess Changde

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

This article is entirely cited to brief mentions in primary sources: the Ming Veritable Records and History of Ming. In the course of the AfC process, the creator added a large number of citations to unreliable sources, which were removed by me and RovingPersonalityConstruct. The remaining non-primary sources do not mention the subject at all: Early Ming China is available on archive.org [6], the Cambridge History (Volume 7) via TWL; neither mentions this person. The Sotheby's source is also completely unrelated. The four citations to ctext.org provide no indication of where in the 332-chapter Ming Shi we are supposed to look to verify the claims in the article. This leaves an exceedingly poorly-sourced article, with the only somewhat-verifiable citations being four sentences in primary sources – in my view, not enough to meet the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Royalty and nobility, and China. Toadspike [Talk] 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

(In case it helps, I believe sources using Wade–Giles would call her "Ch'ang-te".) Toadspike [Talk] 13:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Min968 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Amigao (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Comment Hold on, dude—why do you guys give delete votes without doing any research? SongRuyi (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
@SongRuyi I have read and considered the comments Toadspike made here, as well as reviewed the current state of the article and its sources. So, it's wrong? Every member has the right to express their opinion from their perspective, right? Min968 (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep A senior member of the Ming royal family, Princess Changde was a grand princess of the inner court, a position that automatically made her an important figure within the Ming dynasty. The Ming court codified a precise hierarchy for its imperial women, ensuring their status was clearly defined and recognized. An emperor's daughter was titled 公主 (gōngzhǔ), requiring every minister or official to kneel down to pay respect. They also received generous stipends and an official salary of 2,000 dan. That recorded in 《列传第九　公主》.

Upon her brother's ascension, Princess Changde's status was particularly elevated. She was granted the higher title of Grand Princess (长公主), and when her nephew took the throne, her rank became Grand Princess Royal (大长公主), the highest rank attainable by a female member of the imperial clan. Princess Changde held all three titles over the course of her life; this status was not merely nominal. The princess was invested with a golden patent (金冊, jīncè), and her husband, the Prince Consort, received a patent of appointment (誥命, gàomìng). Her marriage was a top-tier political alliance, masterminded by Empress Dowager Sun. Xue Huan was the son of Xue Lu (薛祿), the Marquis of Yangwu (陽武侯) and one of the most celebrated military commanders of his generation. Her political marriage was discussed in 明实录类纂·宫廷史料卷》"Classified Compilations of the Ming Veritable Records: Volume on Court History"—pages 28, 196

Moreover, her story—particularly the resolution of her domestic conflict with her husband—illustrates the limited yet significant authority that imperial women could exercise within the patriarchal framework of the Ming court. In this case, the emperor's response was swift and uncompromising, indicating that an affront to his sister was treated as an affront to the throne itself. He ordered the arrest of Xue Huan, the fuma (imperial son-in-law), who was publicly disgraced by being interrogated by the state judiciary "in the outer court" (法司考訊於外庭). The sentence was unusually harsh: he was condemned to death by beheading (論當斬). The incident officially recorded in the 明代中央司法審判制度 - Page 159 . This incident highlights the institutional framework surrounding the status and protection of Ming princesses.

I have a general background in Chinese history and mythology, and I recently succeeded in challenging the deletion of a historical figure's article—by initiating a Deletion Review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 July 21#Liu Sai and having the decision reversed. I kindly ask that before nominating an article for deletion (AfD), editors take time to conduct basic research. In this case, the article appears to have received near-instant "delete" votes without much investigation or meaningful consideration. It's important to remember that the AfD process is intended to foster discussion and deliberation, not just tally votes—see WP:NOTVOTE. SongRuyi (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@SongRuyi I sincerely appreciate your improvements to this article and our coverage of Chinese historical figures in general. I am usually lenient with notability of historical Chinese politicians, especially where it is clear they meet our notability guidelines (e.g. here). However, this article was simply too much for me; it was based on a large number of user-generated, deprecated, or irrelevant sources. Please do not see this as some ignorant purge of Chinese history (which I believe everyone who has commented thus far is very interested in), but as an attempt to uphold basic standards of verifiability. For instance, the article still does not make clear where her purported birth year is sourced from, and I suspect all later mentions of her age are original research. It would be great if you could fix that or, if not, remove those claims.

Often with historical figures we can establish notability via WP:NPOL, though I don't think NPOL applies to princesses, so here we'll need to meet the GNG. I am still not entirely convinced the GNG is met. The best source currently in the article is 明淸笔記史料, which appears to be a secondary source, but I don't have access to it. I am unsure whether the primary sources can contribute to the GNG; I believe there is no clear community position on this (or whether the Veritable Records and Ming Shi are primary at all). Toadspike [Talk] 13:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike you need to learn the outcomes of AfD discussions about ancient princesses at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Royalty and nobility/archive, rather than relying on cases involving colonial-era or modern-day PR-stunt princesses. This subject lived over 650 years ago and is discussed in multiple historical books, which is sufficient to meet WP:GNG.

The information of the historical figures was only found in books you labeled as "secondary sources." In my experience, historical books are not considered secondary sources. That is your opinion. This is not a biography of a living person, and different standards apply. I agree that WP:NPOL does not apply to every princess, as there is no specific notability guideline for ancient princes or princesses. Technically, she might meet WP:NPOL, but it's a weak claim.

According to WP:MONARCH, "There are no special notability guidelines about monarchs, nobility, and their descendants. The guidelines for politicians are applied to those who have exercised political authority." She was influential in court as a grand princess and held one of the highest-ranking palace titles, which supports her meeting WP:ANYBIO.

Her notability is also independent, as her high title was conferred by the emperor, so WP:NOTINHERITED not applies. Moreover, her article goes beyond mere genealogy (WP:NOTGENEALOGY); she was involved in a notable scandal, and multiple books cover her receipt of titles. SongRuyi (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

You correctly point out NOTINHERITED. She is not notable solely because she was a princess or because she lived 650 years ago. What would convince me that she is notable is if you could list the "multiple historical books" that discuss her. Based on what is currently cited in the article, I am leaning towards keeping, but I will have to think on it. If you have more sources, preferably ones that are unequivocally secondary, then please share them so we can discuss them. If you could clarify what kind of source 明淸笔記史料 is or provide a quote from it, that would also help.

For context, I am unsure about my personal position on whether the Ming Shi and Ming Shilu are primary; this was discussed at length at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 479#Asia with no clear conclusion. I guess this means that whether they count towards the GNG is up to us to decide. Toadspike [Talk] 14:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

For source, see the new comment below. Plus, I have selected AfD outcome examples for you to consider when determining notability in future AfDs about princesses. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Helena Gibbs—this Western noblewoman’s article was kept due to coverage of her simple noble life, despite having no political power. Even a 0-year-old princess (no royal title/0 political power) can be kept if there are historical sources; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Stuart (1606). Plus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangsinobhadol Yugala—a minor Thai princess—was kept because of considerable coverage of her death and the royal attendance at her funeral by Princess Soamsawali, which made her important in modern Thailand. See also the interesting discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Gyeongchang. Princess Changde of the Ming dynasty was covered far more extensively than these individuals. SongRuyi (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment I found historically significant material showing her involvement in court politics and her official court biography in the 明实录类纂: 宮廷史料卷 (Classified Compilation of the Ming Veritable Records: Volume on Court History Materials). This is sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO#1, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.

... 常德大长公主为其陈情,言: “俸禄先已关过,本府人众食用艰难,乞仍赐给。”上允其情。(《宪宗实录》卷 49 ) (成化四年三月丁卯)吏部左侍郎崔恭清明节陪祭献陵、裕陵不于纠仪官处报名,礼科给事中张宾劾其不敬。

Page 28... The Grand Princess Changde pleaded on their behalf, stating: “The salaries have already been dispensed, and the people of this fǔ (official residence or mansion) are facing hardship in affording food and provisions. We implore that the salaries be granted again.” The Emperor approved her plea. (From the Veritable Records of the Xianzong Era, Volume 49)

授皇第三妹崇德长公主册命,锦衣卫佥事杨容兄宏子伟为驸马都尉,锡以诰。是日长公主下嫁于伟,伟,故兴济伯善之 ... 常德大长公主,景泰间桓于公主有不逊语,天顺初英庙复避,公主入诉下桓于狱,寻戒饬出之,至是卒。辍朝一日,赐葬祭如例 ...

Page 195... During the Jingtai reign, the Grand Princess of Changde accused Huan of using disrespectful language toward the princess. At the beginning of the Tianshun reign, Emperor Yingzong initially avoided the matter, but the princess entered the palace to file a complaint. Huan was imprisoned, later warned, and then released. She passed away around this time. The court was suspended for one day, and she was granted a state funeral and sacrifices in accordance with imperial custom.

... 常德大长公主薨。公主宣宗章皇帝之第三女,母曰:孝恭章皇后。永乐甲辰生,正统丁丑册封常德长公主,下嫁驸马都尉薛桓,成化丁丑蛔封大常公主,到是薨,年四十有七。讣闻辍朝一日,赐祭葬如制。

Page 196... The Grand Princess Changde passed away. She was the third daughter of Emperor Xuanzong Zhang, and her mother was Empress Xiaogong Zhang. She was born in the jiachen year of the Yongle era (1424), and in the dingchou year of the Zhengtong era (1437), she was enfeoffed as the Grand Princess Changde and married the Commandant of fuma, Xue Huan. In the dingchou year of the Chenghua era (1477), she was enfeoffed as the Grand Princess Royal Changde. She died at the age of forty-seven. Upon the news of her death, the court was adjourned for one day, and she was granted a royal funeral and burial in accordance with official regulations. (From the Veritable Records of the Xianzong Era, Volumes 81 and 83).

The historical account records her scandal in front of the emperor. Moreover, the account also details her receipt of the highest royal titles. This is more than enough to establish that she is an important historical figure. Beyond notability, she was given a royal or state funeral, and the royal court (the governing body of the kingdom) was suspended for one day to honor her death. Unlike other princesses of ancient China, her life is recorded in historical chronicles, while even the basic facts about many other princes or princesses remain unknown today. Well, if we forget about her, even her husband—the Imperial Fuma—easily meets WP:NPOL, as he held a court office by virtue of marrying her. That is the ancient Chinese political system, not a Communist system. How much more do you need?. SongRuyi (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete - sorry, I don't buy it, SongRuyi. I can't see the three independent sources with significant coverage specifically of the subject - not just passing mentions - to meet WP:GNG. The 明代中央司法審判制度 reference seems to be more about her husband's trial and punishment rather than she herself, which makes sense given the book title. I can't fully access 明淸笔記史料 but a "search inside" on Google books for 常德 turns up two hits, which seems thin for SIGCOV, unless page 54 is a very dense page. I'd happily consider other sources if they were to be brought to light. I also wouldn't consider her nephew dubbing her 大长公主 to meet the spirit of ANYBIO#1. Finally, and this is somewhat tangential to this discussion, I'd also consider the content that's been added to Princess Changde § Monogamy scandal to be original research, the first two paragraphs at least (can't comment on the third), and certainly not written from a neutral point of view. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Well, that is your opinion, and I don't care whether you buy it or not. I only value comments from much experienced editors on royalty or the Chinese monarchy system, such as @Bearian:, who has shared longstanding standards that help counter baseless AfD votes, and @Pburka:, @Necrothesp: and @Cunard:, who have long experience in AfD discussions on ancient historical figures. I would appreciate any thoughts they might have on this Ming princess. According to past AfD outcomes, a royalty can be considered notable if she engaged in charity work or was involved in a notable scandal—provided it is supported by reliable sources.

You're clearly confusing the requirement for three instances of WP:SIGCOV for living people with the standards for historical figures. For historical subjects, it’s often impossible to get three significant coverage instances from media or newspaper archives. These are different issues entirely. Coverage for historical figures is typically found in books, often in paragraph or even quote style formats. If you're unhappy with book sources, I suggest reviewing dozens of royalty-related AfD outcomes archived on Wikipedia and learning more about sourcing for historical figures. 《明实录类纂》 is a solid source on its own, and you don't need full access to it because I have already provided translated quotations.

I also don’t understand why you’re accusing me of original research for adding Princess Changde#Monogamy scandal. That event can easily be found via Google Books by searching 常德公主薛桓. As a native, I only want to help those who are unfamiliar with the ancient Chinese political system. If you believe you have more knowledge than a native Chinese, then sure—go ahead. But I’m not buying it. SongRuyi (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
You said, I also wouldn't consider her nephew dubbing her 大长公主 to meet the spirit of ANYBIO#1. Well, the powerless constitutional monarchy’s Order of the British Empire (OBE) easily passes WP:ANYBIO—so why wouldn’t the highest title of the absolute monarchy of the Great Ming Empire qualify? (I hope there is no anti-China bias involved—if there is, it would be nearly impossible for me to defend them fairly). The OBE has various ranks and categories and is often awarded to commoners, civilians, or members of the royal family.

In contrast, 大长公主 (Grand Princess Imperial) was awarded only to senior members of the imperial family, accompanied by a gold seal, and historically only about three individuals ever received this title during a reign. It carried real power and influence in medieval China. All people in the Ming dynasty were required to kneel before titleholders of such rank.

One English-language primary note [7]:

Grand Eldest Princess (大长公主): Emperor’s aunt. These titles weren’t merely honorifics—they came with substantial land grants (汤沐邑), administrative staff, and political influence rivaling regional kings.

The more important of the title can be seen at 公主、郡主、县主、乡主：古代女子这些头衔是什么意思？ and 大长公主和长公主的差别在哪里？公主和格格傻傻分不清楚, quote below,

(In Chinese): "其中皇帝的姑姑一般都可以称为大长公主，皇帝的姐妹称为长公主，而皇帝的女儿则称之为公主。其中，大长公主作为先帝的女儿，当代皇帝的姑姑，她们所享受的待遇是最高级的。而下一级的长公主的地位也不差，像热门电视剧《琅琊榜》中的莅阳长公主就有着很大的权势和很好的待遇，拥有自己偌大的公主府用以和驸马一同居住"

(Translation): "Among them, the emperor’s paternal aunts are generally titled Grand Princess Imperial (大长公主), the emperor’s sisters are titled Elder Princess (长公主), and the emperor’s daughters are called simply Princess (公主).

Among these ranks, the Grand Princess Imperial, as the daughter of a previous emperor and the aunt of the current emperor, enjoys the highest level of privileges.

The below rank, Elder Princess, also holds a prestigious position. For example, in the popular TV drama Nirvana in Fire (琅琊榜), the character Princess Liyang (莅阳长公主) holds considerable power and enjoys excellent treatment, with her own large princess's residence where she lives with her prince consort." SongRuyi (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

《明清笔记史料》 is a solid source on its own, and you don't need full access to it because I have already provided translated quotations. Can you point me to the diff where you provide those quotations from 明清笔记史料 please? I can't seem to find them either in the article, or in this discussion. I'll start something on the talk page re original research, as it's probably better to have that discussion there. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, my eyes went beyond! I was referring to 《明实录类纂》, not 《明清笔记史料》—the ref was already included in the article by the original creator, not me. You should ask the creator about that. Let's me correct. I'm currently focused on proving the significance of the 大长公主 title. SongRuyi (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Actually, you added both sources: 《明清笔记史料》 with this edit, and 《明实录类纂》with this one. I'll ask about 《明实录类纂》then - the snippets you have translated seem to be quotations from 宪宗实录, vols 46, 81 and 83 - what additional analysis or commentary does 《明实录类纂》add about Changde over and above the quotations from the primary source? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep. I can't recall any other time we have deleted an article on the child or sibling of a monarch. These are seen as notable people by virtue of who they are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
These are seen as notable people by virtue of who they are According to WP:MONARCH that is not the case. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep I find the case made by SongRuyi compelling, and don't think the article should be deleted per the reasons they set out, but the discussion overall highlights a need for further evaluation and discussion on the talk page about the detail of various sources and their interpretations. Greenleader(2) (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
We should not be "interpreting" primary sources. Our policy page on WP:No original research forbids it: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. That is the job of secondary sources, which we should summarize, and of which we currently have none. Toadspike [Talk] 17:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
@Toadspike — You can’t treat every ancient Chinese chronicle as a primary source. The standards for historical figures and biographies of living persons are not the same, and they should not be treated as comparable cases

I already cleaned up some sentences from the NetEase source to address potential issues, and I don’t believe it violates No original research. If you think there are still problems, feel free to improve it further—that’s how collaborative editing works.

Also, I’ve learned from a comment from a previous AfD discussion (I won’t name the participant) that "a nineteenth-century royal figure documented by even one reliable source was considered notable."

You can’t just delete an entire article if it is supported by historical books. If this one gets removed while others with similar sourcing are kept, I will consider opening a case to question the consistency of past AfD outcomes regarding historical figures. I honestly suspect something — I can almost smell the socks. SongRuyi (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
@SongRuyi, if you suspect sockpuppetry, that's a serious matter, and you should open an investigation at WP:SPI. I will say that I don't think that's happening here, it's just a selection of editors with different viewpoints weighing in on each side of the argument. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep I added the The Sotheby's source to verify the emperor chenghua existence and other source I added 明实录类纂: 宮廷史料卷 (in Chinese). 武汉出版社. 1992. ISBN 978-7-5430-0698-0. verified what I said in para about the princess and the Cambridge citation was to verify Yongle emperor death so yes nothing to do with the princess and i feel that SongRuyi has already made compelling case on the princesses notability. :AJMgirl (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment. I'm not very familiar with Chinese royal traditions, but I think she's likely notable per WP:ANYBIO if the title of "Grand Princess" truly is "a well-known and significant ... honor". In practice, close family of powerful rulers are nearly always notable, even if it may be difficult to find significant coverage in digitized records. pburka (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Having done a little more research in this area, I would say that the title does not meet ANYBIO#1, because in fact all paternal aunts of the Ming emperor were given this title. It is therefore not a selective honor, awarded in recognition of something notable that the subject has done - which I think is the spirit of and intent behind ANYBIO#1 - but rather a blanket title, given by accident of birth. My source for this is:
- Hucker, Charles O. (1958). "Governmental Organization of The Ming Dynasty". Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. 21: 9. doi:10.2307/2718619. ISSN 0073-0548. JSTOR 2718619.
This is the reference from that source (my emphasis):

Every male descendant of Emperor bore at least the title feng-kuo chung-wei, and all were salaried. By the end of the Ming period the number of these imperial clansmen had grown to an estimated 100,000, and they were a serious drain on state revenues.

Women of the imperial clan were similarly ennobled. The paternal aunts of a reigning Emperor were called ta-chang kung-chu 大长公主; the sisters, chang kung-chu 长公主; the daughters, kung-chu 公主. All these Imperial Princesses received annual stipends of 2,000 piculs, and their husbands were given the noble title, Senior Consort (fu-ma tu-wei 駙馬都尉).

The full article should be available through the Wikipedia Library. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
The book stated that "A Princess ranked with a marquis, a Senior Princess (長公主 zhang gongzhu) with a king: hhs 10B:457. There is no record, however, of a Senior Princess holding a commandery fief; all were county-grade. On the term yi, see note 19 to Yongping 2 at 1437."

"Women seldom received such honours. Imperial princesses (公主 gongzhu) or senior princesses (長 zhang gongzhu)—daughters of an emperor—were awarded a county fief, referred to as an “estate” (邑 yi) or “bathtown” (湯沐邑 tangmu yi)"

Yongping 2 at 1437 is refers the Ming dynasty SongRuyi (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment: It seems confusing, but this cited book has nothing to do with the Ming dynasty. Min968 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I’m aware. A Hundred Years of Han discusses the structure and positions of the imperial court during the Han dynasty, but it also includes comparative examples from the Ming dynasty. The book covers topics from many dynasties, and you can search for relevant sections easily using Ctrl + F with keywords. SongRuyi (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
For further 'note—Princess Royal (长公主, zhǎng gōngzhǔ), especially in the Han dynasty, can meet WP:NPOL as the title was equivalent in status to that of a feudal king (诸侯王). See 中国妇女大百科全书 (Encyclopedia of Chinese Women);

In ancient times, the emperor's sister was called a Princess Royal. According to the Han dynasty system, the emperor's daughter was titled Princess (公主), with status equivalent to that of a feudal lord (诸侯); the emperor's sister, titled Princess Royal (长公主), held a status equivalent to that of a feudal king (诸侯王). SongRuyi (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
The Grand Princess appears to have been an important figure in ancient China. There were multiple ranks for imperial women: the Grand Princess and Grand Imperial Princess were considered first-rank, while daughters of the Crown Prince held second-rank titles. Below them were county princesses, who ranked lower in the hierarchy.

According to Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China (2 vols), p. 666, the Senior Princess was ranked equivalent to a Regional Lord. Based on this, in my opinion, first-rank princesses can meet the standards of WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO, especially considering the nature of absolute monarchy, where the system and political influence differ greatly from modern democratic structures. In the imperial system, a first-rank princess could hold substantial authority.

Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China further explains:

"The sisters of the sitting Emperor were referred to by the title Zhang Gongzhu (長公主), translated by Bielenstein (1980, p. 107) as 'Senior Princess' and by Hucker (1985, p. 110, no. 150) as 'Grand Princess.' This title was also sometimes given to the eldest or most favored of the Emperor’s daughters. A Senior Princess was ranked equivalent to a Regional Lord. Senior Princesses and Princesses were enfeoffed with domains that were basically converted counties, and upon their deaths, their sons were made Penetrating Lords."

This kind of enfeoffment and political equivalence indicates a significant level of power and social rank. Therefore, first-rank princesses should not be dismissed as non-notable simply due to their gender or the absence of an official bureaucratic title. SongRuyi (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Sadly the dokumen.pub site is temporarily down, so I can't access the URL. However, the title of the web page being a-hundred-years-of-han-vol-1-being-the-chronicle-of-the-later-han-dynasty-for-the-years-57-to-156-ad-as-recorded-in-chapters-44-to-53-of-the-zizhi-tongjianof-sima-guang-9004720383-9789004720381-q-1884541.html, so seemingly about Eastern Han as recorded in the Zizhi Tongjian, a pre-Ming text, I'm not sure how relevant this is to the discussion of a Ming princess? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment — The title 大长公主 (Grand Princess Imperial) appears to be a first-rank title in the imperial hierarchy. In the Tang dynasty, it was significant enough that a separate administrative bureau (called 邑司, Yìsī) was established specifically for the Grand Princess. This suggests that the title held considerable importance in ancient China.

However, I am unsure whether this title in the Ming dynasty carried any actual political office or administrative authority. My access is limited to the 1991 edition of the book 中國歷代職官辭典 (Dictionary of Official Titles of Successive Chinese Dynasties). This reference provides detailed discussions of titles across dynasties, but unfortunately, I can only view the section up to the Song dynasty. I cannot access information on the Ming and later periods due to the limited preview.

The excerpt I found reads:

“【大长公主】封号。外命妇名，汉代皇帝姑母的封号。北周沿置，正一品。隋大长公主置府。唐置邑司，后亦称长公主。辽承唐制亦置。宋时为外...”

(Translation: “Grand Princess Imperial — a title for a lady of the imperial court (外命妇). It was the honorary title for the emperor’s paternal aunt during the Han dynasty. Continued in Northern Zhou, classified as first-rank. A government office was established under the Sui. In the Tang, the Yìsī bureau was established. Later, it was also known as 'Princess of the First Rank'. The Liao dynasty followed the Tang system. During the Song, it was for external...”)

If anyone has full access to the 1991 edition of this book (Other editions of that book do not feature this title; only the 1991 edition includes a dedicated entry on it.), I would deeply appreciate if you could share details about how this title was treated during the Ming dynasty and whether it held any official capacity. SongRuyi (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I believe my patience has reached its limit. User:SunloungerFrog appears to be targeting me after a dispute at an AfD discussion and a prolonged disagreement on my talk page. He is now consistently countering nearly all of my edits, even though he has not contributed to the Chinese project where many of these edits are taking place. I feel that this persistent scrutiny of my work—often over minor issues...seems a personal bias rather than constructive editorial oversight. I’ve tried to remain silent and patient, but this conduct seems to go beyond normal editorial disagreement. If he claims this is part of his editor duties, then I should be allowed to take the same editorial interest in his contributions. Should I consider opening an ANI (Administrators’ Noticeboard/Incidents) discussion? SongRuyi (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
@SongRuyi, if you would like to discuss, civilly, some of the edits I've made, please do that on the articles' talk pages, or on my talk page - this AfD is not the place for content disputes about other articles. On the subject of Princess Changde, you could respond to Talk:Princess Changde § Religious endowments - failed verification?. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I don’t have time to answer every question you ask. I’m highly educated and busy with real-life responsibilities, unlike you. Since you've already removed my edit, there’s no need for further discussion. You’re not my boss on Wikipedia, so I’m under no obligation to respond to your nonsense. I will no longer contribute to Wikipedia, but instead, I will focus on identifying and pointing out mistakes made by editors like SunloungerFrog, as part of my duty to improve the platform. SongRuyi (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis that includes the sources presented here would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Union Center, Indiana

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

This is just across the tracks from a US Army Reserve facility, which in turn is south of the sprawling remains of the Kingsbury Ordnance Plant; but at this spot there is nothing but a string of houses on one side of the road, of varying ages. I couldn't find anything out about the spot beyond what I could see one the map, a problem exacerbated by two other Union Centers in other parts of the state. Mangoe (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Twopence-farthing

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

I redirected this to List of British banknotes and coins as this is a very obscure coin, the text is a partial copyright violation of the source given, and the sources I find all give very little attention to this coin, just repeating the original instructions about making these. Fram (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

This article is a stub and im just an in progress editor and teh description of the picture has a fair use rationale in the desc pls check and the other problems are mainly due to the obscurity of sourecs and how early this stub is so instead can u pls juet help make the article lose the probels may helping finish it pls im a amateur editor thats jsut trying to make a new article about a notable in my opinion coin Arònel123 (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep – The 2¼d coin is a historically attested denomination resulting from countermarked Edward VI shillings with a portcullis stamp during Elizabeth I’s reign. While obscure, it is described in [INSERT SOURCE HERE], and part of a pair with the 4½d, which has also been independently verified. The article has been improved and sourced, and it fits into the broader historical pattern of irregular coinage following the mid-Tudor crisis. This is a real coin, not a hoax or fringe subject. It may remain a stub, but it is verifiable and historically valid, meeting Wikipedia’s notability standards for numismatics and British coinage. Deletion would remove information not covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. Arònel123 (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep – The 2¼d coin is a historically attested denomination resulting from countermarked Edward VI shillings with a portcullis stamp during Elizabeth I’s reign. While obscure, it is described in non wikipedia palces,like auction lsitngs,evennif its only a single source ,but that's due to teh fact that this was a stube made only a day ago, and part of a pair with the 4½d, which has also been independently verified. The article has been improved and sourced, and it fits into the broader historical pattern of irregular coinage following the mid-Tudor crisis. This is a real coin, not a hoax or fringe subject. It may remain a stub, but it is verifiable and historically valid, meeting Wikipedia’s notability standards for numismatics and British coinage. Deletion would remove information not covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. Arònel123 (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I have added the following article for the same reasons (plus created by same editor at same time, so easier to discuss together):

Keep - Same reason as teh other coin Arònel123 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Adam B. Resnick

AfDs for this article:

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

The article solely relies on the Crime prospect and does not satisfy WP:BLP. Apart from his Criminal activities, no other notable achievements found. talk|XXr]] Talk 10:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and Crime. talk|XXr]] Talk 10:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete: I can only pull up an architect [8], nothing about this person. The bank fraud is non-notable. There could perhaps be an article about the whistleblower lawsuit, but I don't think the subject here is notable alone (could be mentioned in that article). Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO. Could be transformed into an article about the whistleblower event, but fails as a BLP. UtherSRG (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Rampura

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

This article is combining many disparate conflicts into a single battle. This is proven by synthesis of sources done to portray such a skewed infobox. Most of the sources are also several decades and none of them provide any significant coverage to this topic. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 10:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not to mention this article's creator was topic banned for the similarly problematic edits. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Sheikh Russel

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

Not notable enough. The article is standing on the basis of the person being the son of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and as per WP:INVALIDBIO, it can't be a reason to stand it as an article. Additionally completely fails WP:ANYBIO. The person died during the 15 August 1975 Bangladeshi coup d'état. As per WP:BIO1E, it is said — When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event, and the person's name should be redirected to it. In the scenario, he was not an active participant who executed the coup, he was just killed during the coup. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 07:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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.

Muhammad Kabir Nuhu-Koko

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

Only 1 article links to this. No inherent notability in positions held such as "Deputy Director in the Procurement and Support Services Department". Could not find SIGCOV in third party sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Engineering, and Nigeria. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 13:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Gabbi Kosmidis

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gabbi Kosmidis

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

The subject of the article is a voice actor who does not meet any criteria under WP:NACTOR. They have not played any significant roles, nor received any major awards. A Google search returns only passing mentions, with no substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. SongRuyi (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep - She does meet NACTOR; she had a main role in a television show and the leading voice role in a movie. The article does need work and more sources but it does meet NACTOR. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Tribute article is also a primary source and autobiography. There is no significant coverage about her, only mention in passing. SongRuyi (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I did not mention either of those sources DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
so Why did you vote 'keep'? WP:NACTOR is only an additional criterion it doesn't override the need to meet the main requirement, WP:GNG. Without passing the GNG, it doesn't matter how many additional criteria someone meets. Please keep in mind WP:3SOURCES. SongRuyi (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
1.) The additional criteria is not in addition to the basic criteria, it is a more specific version. Various other articles have been kept because they met NACTOR

2.) 3 Sources is not relevant here as I did not mention sources. I was saying that it did meet NACTOR (which you said it did not)

3.) Please be more respectful when replying to comments DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
You should learn from past AfD outcomes involving sportspersons. Even though many met WP:SPORTPERSON, most were still deleted due to not meeting WP:GNG. SongRuyi (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Wait — what do you mean by 'Please be more respectful when replying to comments'? There was nothing rude in what I wrote above. What’s going on with you? Do you think you're some kind of VIP on Wikipedia? SongRuyi (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Your tone was quite rude to myself and to the editor below. I do not think I am "some kind of VIP" on Wikipedia, I think everyone should be treated with respect, including yourself and myself. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
so? should i add dear to every my comments? SongRuyi (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

SongRuyi please keep civility on this AfD. Being civil is part of the five pillars of Wikipedia. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
@Royiswariii well, pls highlight which my words is uncivility? I really don't understand why all editors only blame me? you are a Facebook friend of above editors and they asked you to blame me? Just asking because this case very strange. SongRuyi (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep - when I created the article, I thought that the subject just about met WP:NACTOR, with a significant role in three notable shows/games. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
read comment above: WP:NACTOR is only an additional criteria, where WP:3SOURCES ? SongRuyi (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Greece, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep It is passed on WP:NACTOR:The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Since, she's have a major role on a notable films so therefore it is notable. I will agree to DaniloDaysOfOurLives and SunloungerFrog since it was a stub article, it can be expandable. WP:SNOW. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Withdraw I want to Withdraw this AfD, as I agree this subject is notable. Thanks, and sorry for the misunderstanding. SongRuyi (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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.

Results of the 2005 Quebec municipal elections in Bas-Saint-Laurent

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

The only website I was able to find was https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/fr/dataset/resultats-des-elections-municipales-generales but that is not enough to prove the subject is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

delete This is sort of a cavalcade of non-notability, given the small numbers of voters in small cities and towns, and the large proportion of pro forma elections without opposition. I also don't see why the grouping under the larger region is meaningful. Mangoe (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Puzhal (film)

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

Entire articles banks on a single TOI review, passing mentions and previously many dead links. Only thing found in a WP:BEFORE is another passing mention. DareshMohan (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Tamil films of 2010: the standard alternative to deletion when released films include notable cast or crew members but the director and writer have no page, and the films have only 1 review and information about them are verifiable. - Eva Ux 10:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. - Eva Ux 10:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Tamil films of 2010 as per above editor. Behappyyar (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Tamil films of 2010. – Aqsis Bey (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to List_of_Tamil_films_of_2010#July_–_September. Fails to meet WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers

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

There is no information in this article which suggests the subject of the article meets notability requirements. There is a reference to the Vatican website, but this simply confirms he was excommunicated. That does not make him notable. Otherwise the (scant) sources are to blogs and other private websites, and one to an academic work. Mere mention in an academic work does not make one notable. The highest the claims of the article reach are that: (1) he once wrote a letter to Archbishop Le Febvre (no mention as to whether the Archbishop bothered to reply) (2) he supported a belief known as sedeprivationism (supporting a belief does not make one notable) (3) (in other parts of the article) he invented the belief known as sedeprivationism (but this claim is entirely unsupported by any reference) (4) an excommunicated Catholic bishop purported to make him a Catholic bishop, and then he purported to make further people Catholic bishops (there is no source for this claim, it is entirely unreferenced). CountryLad (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Revfin

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

Fails WP:NCORP as sourcing consists of routine business announcements, fundraising reports, and partnership notices, all of which are trivial coverage and do not contribute to WP:CORPDEPTH. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RevFin. Yuvaank (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Distortion (film)

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

Non notable film. It was redirected, but the redirect target doesn't mention the film any longer, and at RfD it was suggested that AfD would be better than RfD. I can find no sources establishing notability[9]. Fram (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Comment: This could potentially redirect to List of Philippine films of 2023. I did find a mention of this in an academic/scholarly book, which made me optimistic that there might be more sourcing - but I couldn't find anything else. I'll hold off until I hear from others, just in case there's coverage in Filipino. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The Jewish Cause: An Introduction to a Different Israeli History

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

Would seem to fail WP:NBOOK and lacks other notability from verifiable reliable sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. $Destinyokhiria 💬$ 07:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Under a prior article title, this previously went to AfD as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Matter of the Jews. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, and Judaism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
I suck at searching in Hebrew but there is 1 review here so it's halfway to passing nbook. Was a source check done? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Delete: There appears to be one review of the book, under the "Critique of the book" external link in the article. I don't see any other reviews in my searches, I don't think we have enough to show notability for books. Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Comment. I'm relying on machine translation and could very well be wrong, but it seems like the external link "About the book, in Segula Magazine for Jewish History" is also a review. It's just a scan of a page and I can't find a way to access the magazine issue, but based on a machine translation it reads and is presented like a second review of the book. Hopefully someone else might be able to confirm? MCE89 (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Also noting that there was a previous AfD in 2021 under a previous page title, which ended in no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Matter of the Jews. MCE89 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the cited Segula Magazine page is a substantive and non-trivial review of this specific book, discussing its main thesis and explaining Berent's views of the subject as presented in the book. It might be not as long and deep as Dr Levin's review of the book, but it certainly qualifies under Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria as a second review. Guybas (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep. The book qualifies under Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria as having at least two real, non-trivial reviews, in respected sources that are independent of the book itself:

Nine page long, wide and deep Dr Levin's review
One page long, substantive and precise Segula Magazine review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guybas (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Pass of NBOOK per above. gidonb (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is evenly divided on whether or not this article subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (books).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Essence (book)

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

Tabloid sources only in marginally reliable to unreliable sources. A WP:PROMO puff piece which should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Visual arts, Photography, and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I did a runthrough of the sourcing on the AfD talk page. Aside from the nominator's tabloid concerns, the sourcing is almost entirely made up of Q&A interviews - these are considered to be primary sources on Wikipedia since they typically have little to no editorial oversight or fact-checking. Only two of the sources were non-interviews and one of them was so heavily based on quotes that it might as well have been an interview. Even if the tabloid concerns weren't a factor, the remaining two sources are fairly weak and not enough to pass NBOOK. I'll look to see if there is anything else, but offhand this doesn't look like it will pass. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete. This didn't take long. There's really nothing out there - anything that is out there is in the article and as mentioned prior, the sourcing isn't enough to pass NBOOK. Since there's a chance that the article creator will see this - and it looks extremely likely that they have a COI of some type, I'd like to ask that they stop trying to add the author and his works to Wikipedia. All of them have notability issues. Work through the AfC process - do not circumvent it, as this will just lead to them getting nominated for deletion - I'm surprised that the film article (Reset (2024 film)) hasn't yet been nominated. You are doing the author more harm than good, as each deletion makes it more and more difficult to establish notability later on down the line. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete. I found no additional sources in my searches either, and I agree that nothing currently in the article is any help in passing NBOOK. And that's not to mention the fact that the article is bordering on G11 levels of promo. MCE89 (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Edward J Crawford

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

Routine acquisition news, trivial mentions, partnership announcements and more unbylined articles and interviews from where he studied - Tulane University. TampaBay.com and FloridaPolitics articles mention him only once. I am not able to find any significant independent coverage about him. Fails WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Deja Vu (group)

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

Wikipedia article seems to be cobbled together from social media sources and brief mentions in news articles about The Voice UK series 12. I can't find any independent news sources specifically about the group, apart from the hungermag.com article already cited. Neither do they seem to have had any notable success outside of their appearance on The Voice. I'd say "delete" for now. Sionk (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep - Whilst they are not the main subject of the Digital Spy article, I'd say that that counts towards SIGCOV in addition to this source ([10]) and the Hunger mag, as it shows that they are notable. If it not kept I would recommend merging and redirecting to The Voice UK series 12 to preserve the history and allow the page to be recreated in the future. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

They are very brief mentions in relation to their appearance in The Voice UK series 12. Though I'd have nothing against them getting an 'honourable mention' in the The Voice UK series 12 article, considering they were the first group to perform in The Voice (and the first act to appear in that year's series). Sionk (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep - As DaniloDaysOfOurLives, I'd argue there's SIGCOV of the group, especially with that Hunger interview. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep have received SIGCOV, as well as their song "Hot" spending numerous consecutive weeks at #1 on Future Hits Radio (still charting), as well as their other single "Hell Yeah" currently charting on it. Whilst an independent radio station, it shows public knowledge and interest of the group. – Meena • 22:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Any evidence of this? Sionk (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Here's their most recent chart. Their website and socials cover ones from previous weeks/months where their #1 placements were held. – Meena • 13:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Joss Sackler

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

Defamatory description of a private individual. There are no references for this individual beyond tabloids. Historyexpert2 (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Historyexpert2 (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Fashion, Canada, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep: Plenty of coverage around fashion launches and the controversy surrounding her husband [11], Forbes staff story [12], [13]. Could perhaps use a rewrite, but I see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment: A "private individual" that presents a fashion show under their name, isn't private. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep A quick look at the article shows that the nominator is very incorrect. This is not a "private individual" and publications like Town & Country (magazine) and Vanity Fair (magazine) are reliable sources, not "tabloids." Asparagusstar (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep – Clearly notable based on the sources above. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga

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

There is nothing in the article that indicates this person is notable. There is an enormous amount about his biography, but nothing indicates he fulfills notability requirements. The highest it can be put is that he founded an organisation called Union Catolica Trento, an organisation which returns very few Google results and there is only one cited source in the article for and it is a seemingly self-published book without an ISBN. Also, he was "connected" with Los TECOS, but the nature of the connection is completely unarticulated so there is no way to know whether that might in some way make him notable. There is also reference to his excommunication but the only detail about that is a quote from someone saying that his excommunication was outrageous (this is in marked contradistinction to the detail about his family life, which is copious, for some reason). This strongly tends to suggest the article is not written from a neutral point of view. More generally, the only sources are extremely obscure ones, and many of the main ones it is impossible to verify if they actually exist (see in particular "Rius Facius"). CountryLad (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Tee Lake, Indiana

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

Actually another South Shore Line flag stop, dropped some decades back. This picture from back in the day should give you an indication of its non-town-ness; the rail spot is as isolated now. There is a residential area on the southeast side of the lake, but it's relatively recent. Mangoe (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Dansk Almennyttigt Boligselskab

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

The subject, while a big company, doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV and doesn't meet WP:NORG. Even the corresponding article in Danish doesn't cite any sources. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 06:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 06:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep, has an article in Denmark's general encyclopedia, so that's where I stop my WP:BEFORE. Geschichte (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
And the company/organisation has its own article on dawiki. I don't see what use the information is to anyone who lives outside of Denmark. It wouldn't even be of interest to someone researching Denmark, because the company is hardly notable in Denmark itself. The company owns buildings (lots of them!) is hardly enough to make it notable. Recently, DAB and Lejerbo merged so now they're called DAB-Lejerbo. Still, that's not of encyclopaedic interest, Wikipedia is not a business bulletin or news service. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 03:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Aheria

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

Qualified for deletion policy, unsourced, one line article. Dolphish (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, India, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Dolphish (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep: The first reference would normally seem to be adequate, but some people distrust pre-1947 sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Wawasee Village, Indiana

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

Auerials and topos show this to be a subdivision laid out in the later 1950s just south of Syracuse, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

P.K. Shifana

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

The subject is only a youth wing leader of a political party and lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are no in-depth secondary sources establishing notability. Thilsebatti (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Weak draftify - some coverage of the response to her election:

The Hindu: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/calicut-university-election-kerala-hc-directs-police-protection/article69828807.ece

LiveLaw: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-police-protection-calicut-university-union-election-298108 SDGB1217 (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep - per WP:GNG. Although not solely notable as the elected union chairperson of a major University in Kerala, India, This Article has been given significant coverage by several credible and independent sources [14] [15]. In particular, The Hindu, a major national newspaper, has published articles detailing her electoral victory, her involvement in the Kerala High Court's election process, and the court's verdict. This goes beyond a simple announcement, demonstrating significant coverage in a non-trivial and independent context, thus meeting the criteria of the General Notability Guidelines. ~ Spworld2 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

You still have no idea what GNG is. The two articles cited by you do not establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. These are event-based, routine news reports that focus on student union elections at Calicut University, not on P.K. Shifana as a person.

The first article mentions her name once, as part of a brief result announcement—nothing more than routine, non-significant coverage.
The second article concerns a court order for election-related police protection and does not discuss Shifana’s actions, background, or significance.
Neither article provides sustained coverage, biographical depth, or an indication of long-term significance. Mentioning her in passing, even in The Hindu, does not equate to notability. As per policy, WP:GNG requires multiple, in-depth, reliable, and independent sources that cover the subject—not just name-drops in broader stories.

At best, she is a temporary office-bearer in a student body and a youth wing leader, which fails WP:POLITICIAN, which generally expects elected officials at a higher administrative level (e.g., MLAs, MPs, mayors, etc.). Thilsebatti (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
The collective weight of reliable, independent sources unequivocally establishes P.K. Shifana's notability under WP:GNG. The Hindu confirms her election as University of Calicut Union Chairperson and her role in a Kerala High Court order for police protection, demonstrating her direct involvement in newsworthy events. Onmanorama(by Malayala Manorama) provides in-depth coverage highlighting her historic achievement as the Chairperson, offering significant biographical context [16]. Furthermore, the Mathrubhumi interview [17] and the Livelaw.in report[18] detailing the High Court proceedings concerning her petition represent sustained, non-trivial coverage from multiple reputable outlets. These sources, individually and collectively, surpass "name-drops" and constitute the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG, making her notable irrespective of WP:POLITICIAN's scope.
Beyond significant media coverage, P.K. Shifana's leadership roles as a national-level figure for the Muslim Students Federation (MSF), a student wing of the Indian Union Muslim League (a party with parliamentary representation and strong presence in Kerala and Tamil Nadu), and as Convenor of the United Democratic Students' Front (UDSF), coupled with her prominence in the women's wing Haritha, collectively establish her notability under WP:POLITICIAN by demonstrating substantial influence within significant political organizations
Spworld2 (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Completely vague statement by the article creator. While P.K. Shifana’s involvement in student and women’s wings of a political party may reflect her active engagement in political spaces, that alone doesn’t meet the bar for notability under WP:POLITICIAN. The guideline specifically presumes notability for individuals who have held significant elected or appointed roles at the national level — not for internal leadership in youth or affiliated wings. Groups like the United Democratic Students’ Front and Haritha, while active in certain circles, are not notable in their own right according to Wikipedia standards. These are largely internal or subsidiary bodies and don’t carry the same weight as independently recognized political offices. Most importantly, notability on Wikipedia isn’t just about holding positions — it’s about whether those roles have received significant, in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. In this case, such coverage appears to be lacking. Without it, we can't establish that her political influence rises to the level required for a standalone article. If you can show me a single source which gives her in-depth independent coverage, I'm happy to withdraw my nomination. Thilsebatti (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Note to Closing admin: Spworld2 is the article creator.Thilsebatti (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. By the way, the article creator, like the nominator, is welcome to participate in the AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete: The explanations above sum it up, just not enough to show notability, a secretary or student union head aren't quite notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Asha Jadeja

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

The subject is not notable on its own. The article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most of the references are primary, affiliated, or promotional in nature, such as interviews, speaker profiles, or brief mentions in event-related press. There is no in-depth coverage that establishes lasting notability. Thilsebatti (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, India, and United States of America. Thilsebatti (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your feedback! I’ve made a few updates to address the concerns:

- Content: I’ve adjusted the language to align with NPOV (Neutral Point of View), ensuring the tone is neutral and factual.

- Citations: I’ve strengthened the references with reliable sources such as Stanford University, Business Today, The Indian Express, UCSD.edu, AsianAge, CNBCTV18, The Economic Times, and The Times of India. These sources are in line with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and establish her Wikipedia:Notability per Wikipedia guidelines.

I believe these changes effectively address the concerns regarding verifiability and reliable sourcing. Hopefully, this clears things up and we can KEEP the page!

Cheers! Njoy deep (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

None of the new sources you added does not helps to establish notability. They are either passing mentions or primary sources. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with nom in so much as there is little in WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and, as pointed out, many of the sources provided are WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE. Notwithstanding all this, IMO there are a few pieces of SIGCOV (i.e., [19]), but not widespread enough to qualify for notability. GuardianH 21:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Delete – Per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Appears to be promoted content, without independence. Svartner (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relsting. There is an unbolded Keep here. Can participants evalute newly added sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Edgar M. Louton

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

Subject appears non-notable. Zero sources found to show notability, Gbooks has nothing. Gsearch only brings up this Wiki page or mirrors, then peters off. No lasting notability found. Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Delete I am not sure why you say zero sources to show notability as there are sources in the article. I also used WP:TWL to check newspaper archive and there any several mentions of this guy from the 1960s. However, it appears to me to be routine coverage as it is just announcements of his talk in the various towns he saw in his speaking tour. The talk appears to be basically that he went to africa and is going to tell people about it. I don't really think that makes him notable. I say routine coverage as they were not presented as reported stories with by-line but more like guest speaker announcements by the churches he was visiting. I don't really see stuff from the 80s to show that his beliefs were notable outside of the church he practiced in. Czarking0 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The sources in the article don't show notability, they describe a pastor doing church things, that's rather routine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Unfortunately this looks like a bit of a walled garden. That will need some more cleanup. I'm going to see what I can prod. Jahaza (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Merge I propose this is merged into the Louton family article. The family biographer, Rollin G. Grams (also a family member), conducted an in-depth study of the family's influence as one of his academic projects, and the book very clearly documents the family's influence as a missionary power bloc in South Africa. However, agree with nom that the subject is not notable independent of his family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredthefighter (talk • contribs) 16:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not even sure the family is notable. A bunch of non-notable people lumped together doesn't make notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Merge to A. G. Louton if that article is kept, as they have a combined notability working together in South Africa, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep: See the references already present in the article. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Merge to A. G. Louton without notoriety 200.46.55.111 (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's a clear ATD, it's not certain whether A. G. Louton or Louton Family will survive their own deletion discussions. Relisting this so we know whether there's a target, or whether this should be deleted (which it would be as G8 if the redirect is implemented and the target is deleted)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Samah Khaled

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

Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The best I could find was a couple of paragraphs at [[20]], but it is pretty routine race coverage. Let'srun (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cycling, and Jordan. Let'srun (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep, have expanded and updated the article from with sources including The National, Reuters, ProCyclingUK.com and L'Équipe (in French). SDGB1217 (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

apologies for the typo! SDGB1217 (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the find. I would be willing to withdraw, thoughts @Svartner? Let'srun (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Atropia (fictional country)

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

Subject lacks notability / WP:SIGCOV. Over 80% of the references rely on a single primary source from the US Army. A film based on the fictional country is notable, but this "country" itself is one of many used in military training. More coverage is needed beyond the context of the film to determine notability. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep. The article is currently a bit of a muddle that needs work to separate the "real" Atropia (the training center) and the fictional Atropia, but overall it meets WP:GNG: for example, here's a full-length article in the Wall Street Journal (archive).

All that said, I would not necessarily object to refocusing the article from Atropia alone to all fictional countries used by the US military, although I'm pretty sure Atropia is the most notable of the bunch. Asamboi (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Military, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Daddy's Home (Sir Mix-a-Lot album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM; should be redirected to Sir Mix-a-Lot discography. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 01:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Dave Kirwan

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

Created a single purpose editor. Only 1 article links to this. A search in google news for ["Dave Kirwan" weather -wikipedia] yielded nothing. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, Australia, and New York. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Person working in various news outlets, nothing terribly notable about the career from what I see. Seems rather routine. No sourcing to show notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Pangangan Island

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

See WP:ANI incident for context. Pangangan Island passes notability per WP:GEONATURAL but it's better to start from scratch than incorporate the LLM inputs in the article's history. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philippines and Islands. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep but stubify to remove all unsourced information. If the subject is notable, then it is best to avoid deletion when possible, as it can discourage editors from recreating the page. – Ike Lek (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Delete - seems the OP has been disciplined (although I don't see anything on their userpage..). The page is tainted therefore seems like WP:TNT is the correct way forward. JMWt (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

1972 Thandwe Burma Airways Douglas C-47 crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself (like this piece of contemporary news coverage). The event does not have any in-depth or sustained continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. I tried searching in Burmese and did find this Facebook post from an aviation enthusiast which contains clippings of contemporary pieces of coverage of the accident. However, none of these establish notability since they're all from around the time of the accident. There have been no lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Myanmar. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

At this point, I have to go with delete. No sign of any lasting impact other than on the victims and their survivors. Mangoe (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep This was a civilian air crash with 28 fatalities. This did get some coverage back when it crashed. The Facebook post shows that people still remember the crash. It is not surprising that this didn't get much attention when no investigation was even known to have been started. Also, Myanmar was a more isolated country at the time. There was some coverage of the crash when it happened.
https://knowledgezone.co.in/topics/browser?topic=1972%20Thandwe%20Burma%20Airways%20Douglas%20C-47%20crash

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-news-tribune-burma-plane-crash-kills/175672810/

၁၉၇၂... - Myanmar Aviation | Facebook Zaptain United (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete‎. WP:G5 - created by a sockpuppet of a blocked editor with no substantial contributions by other editors (siply importing short description). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

R935 road (Ireland)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/R935 road (Ireland)

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

Non-notable, only has a single source, and created by blocked sockpuppet PatWhelehan. The article only has 1 edit apart from PatWhelehan's. Somepinkdude (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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.

Siyahat Meri Syahi Se

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

Fails WP:NBOOK with WP:NEWSORGINDIA issues.

Sources 3, 4, and 5 have nothing to do with the book - they contain background information on the author.
Sources 1, 7, and 8 are articles about launch parties for the book, which are excluded under WP:BKCRIT: publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources 2 and 6 are actually the same review (2 in Hindi, 6 in English) and contain promotional and overly positive language such as This book will reveal new levels of life for those seeking inspiration... it is essential reading for every youth. Astaire (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Travel and tourism, and India. Astaire (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with nom. Largely WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS with weak sourcing. GuardianH 04:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Certified pre-owned

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

Contested PROD. There may be a notable topic here, but the article as it stands isn't it. It's writen like a buyers' guide, thus failing WP:NOTGUIDE, and at best needs WP:TNT. The article creator mused in response to the PROD about possibly reverting to an earlier version, but the earlier versions would, today, simply be a WP:DICDEF. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Transportation. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Memories with Maya

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

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Of the 3 sources in the article, 2 are from the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Source 2 [21] lists the book under "Recent Books by IEET Fellows and Staff", which means the IEET sources are non-independent. The only other review I could find is this one [22], which is by a HuffPost contributor and therefore not reliable (WP:HUFFPOCON). Astaire (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Astaire (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Couldn't find any reviews by Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, Booklist, etc. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I did find mention in this book through Taylor & Francis, but that's kind of the only thing I found. It looks like the book did get published through Penguin Random House in India as simply "Maya", but all I can find is a sole negative review from the Telegraph. It looks like finding any further sourcing, assuming it exists, will be a pretty difficult thing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Mobile Literacy in South Africa

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

Overly specific topic with no WP:SIGCOV. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 00:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and South Africa. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 00:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Caesar DePaço

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

Not questioning notability on this one. The issue is much bigger: the article has been, by a court order, made to go against WP:NPOV, which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. In this case, I believe it is better to have no article at all than to have an article that can only be written in a biased way.

That is still the case even if there is an orange tag warning about it: tags are supposed to be for fixable issues, and an article that cannot be improved beyond this tag is not an article worth having.

To note, this was a contested WP:BLAR (with the same rationale), which I am bringing to AfD for further input. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Portugal. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Replace with some kind of community statement. I agree that, if we are not allowed to have an article that complies with our own policies, we should not have any article at all; furthermore, editors risk liability in editing it now. However, if we're going to be so greatly departing from standard practice, we might as well take a stand. Putting together a note explaining the situation and our position would be better than just deleting or redirecting it. I suggest something like

We don't need to agree on the exact details now, but something like that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with this. I suggested deletion as the simplest proposal, but this is a much better way to go at it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Does the court order only require that the content be removed from Wikipedia or that it not be hosted on Wikipedia? If so, I'm curious what would happen if we included a link to an externally-hosted version of the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD Augustresende (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Blank and banner. This is an encyclopedia and when we are stopped from maintaining one, we are not going to transition into a PR agency. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep I think we create poor incentives if reliably sourced articles of notable individuals can be removed by a favorable court ordering the removal of a few lines from the article. If we delete I think we disincentive the foundation from spending the legal resources they should to defend articles that should exist and should have content which fully complies with our policies and I think we'd rather incentivize others to sue to see if they can't get their article removed by even a small victory. I want to spread reliable information as much as I can and so I would rather have an article, which provides lots of information (including information about this controversey and information we know the article subject would prefer to be deleted), serving our readers as much information as we can. Our articles are often incomplete, and while the reasons for this being incomplete are galling and (thankfully so far) unique it's hardly an unknown state of affairs for our articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand your framing here. If all content they consider defamatory has been removed, the individual has already won; putting a scarlet letter like this on their article is, if anything, getting one last small victory over them. I also don't understand why you anticipate that blanking an article in protest like this would discourage the WMF from trying to rectify the situation we'd be protesting. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I am against blanking this article, not as I have written above and below, making a statement. I worry that if we say "if a court order us to take down any part of an article, we'll just bury the article" we're doing two things. 1) We make it more inviting for other people to get entire articles deleted, or effectively deleted (going to an article's history is an ELITE action many of readers won't know how to do) 2) we make it so that if the WMF loses in an initial round the WMF has to consider whether it's worth the resources to appeal, knowing that we're going to just put up some statement in response if they don't ultimately pervail. We are, in effect, asking the WMF to more stand by article contents than we're willing to do (if we delete and/or bury it in the history) and since historically we're more in favor of those things I would guess the WMF would quickly decide to spend its resources elsewhere thus creating this situation where we might have otherwise won on appeal. best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The other information would still be available in the history tab, and Tamzin's message would tell people to look at it. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Do what Tamzin has suggested to do. We need to make it clear we're not okay with this. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
By all means let's make a statement. That's not incompatible with continuing to do our mission of spreading high quality information by keeping the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
That's the thing, the information can't be high quality because the subject SLAPPed the WMF (according to the WMF) in order to remove that info. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I think there's plenty of high quality information left and think there is every bit of liklihood that we could create new high quality information with what happens to DePaco in the future, which hiding information in the history would prevent. I am by no means anti-statement - it's why I created a template to advertise the fact and why I would support something along the lines of what Tamzin has written - but that's not incompatible with keeping this article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Replace with banner per Tamzin. The page as it stands right now is a legal land mine for any contributor who wishes to edit it - what content was suppressed? Is an editor who re-adds that content unknowingly suddenly legally liable? At the same time outright deletion would simply (a) sweep the issue under the rug and (b) leave a redlinked land mine for a good-faith editor thinking they've found a notable, uncovered subject to step on. Replacing with a banner demonstrates that we, the community, are not okay with this, indicates why, and also leaves the content-as-is available in the revision history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Banner per Tamzin Andy Dingley (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict × a bunch) Preemptive thank you to the closer.
I don't have the answer to this one (and I will be curious to see what the community can come up with). Some unique alternatives to deletion here:
1. We have to make sure all aspects of his life are balanced accurately: the good, the bad, the neutral. We can't have the bad, so we should remove the good—most of the information about philanthropy. I already removed some BOLDly, but there is more that could be removed.
2. We can add Tamzin's banner regardless of what we do with the rest of the article
3. The community should ask the WMF to black Wikipedia out in Portugal (if the ECHR has the ability to overturn the judgement, then complying while the judgement is being appealed would be a necessary evil, in my opinion)
4. We could try to do number (3) ourselves via a gadget
We can also do multiple things. Finally, I suspect that some editors might question whether this belongs at AFD, especially if this turns into a discussion of which ATD(s) are appropriate. I'll point to the fact that deletion should be on the table. Personally, I think I support removing most of the good + a banner + leaving the rest of the article intact. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Replace with community statement per Tamzin. It would be one thing if there were a clear limitation on what the article was allowed to contain, but right now editors must either give a wide berth to anything related to accusations of past crimes, an organization he was alleged to have founded, and his resignation (or dismissal) from a civil service post, or expose themselves to further legal risk. This chilling effect would extend beyond what the Foundation has directly removed, and we should not let editors unknowingly wander into this area where the WMF's privacy commitments no longer seem to hold. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
We actually don't know whether or not there will be clear limits available. It's entirely possible when we get an answer to that question we will find out it is possible. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep: I agree with Barkeep49. Deleting or replacing the article with a banner would be setting a bad precedent. We can deal with this without depriving our readers of what remains. MediaKyle (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
That would make us complicit in SLAPP censorship. The WMF fucked up here. The only people depriving our readers of "what remains" are the WMF for agreeing to this office action. Trying to deflect blame on the editors is absolving the WMF of their ultimate responsibility for agreeing to this office action in the first place. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Per Tamzin. Keeping, deleting, or redirecting would mean yielding to the unfair rule. A community protest banner is the least what we can do. — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 01:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Unless someone at WMF Legal says it's a bad idea, perhaps what makes the most sense is to add a banner (without deleting the article) explaining that it had been subject to a Portuguese court order to remove material concerning [quoting directly from a translated version of the order] acts of a criminal nature allegedly committed by the plaintiff, which occurred in 1989, and their subsequent procedural processing, dismissal of the plaintiff from the post of honorary consul of Cape Verde, and that the plaintiff was prevented from obtaining any Portuguese document. While that might sound "pointy", I'm mainly thinking about how to ensure other editors do not incidentally restore material that was deemed to be illegal, and secondarily about how to present an article to readers that we know to be noncompliant with wikipolicy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Per @Tamzin: but slightly different:

1. Put the template at top of article.

2. Lock article forever or until legal issues no longer exist.

3. Now replace the entire body of the article UNDER the template with a link to the last visible version of the article, with "Click here for the final exposed version of..." This is the one just locked; every page under here now carries a big warning template. All final locked versions.

4. Lock the talk page with a similar setup. Lock any talk archives.

5. Never touch it again unless WMF legal stuff mandates or clears it.

Is that possible? Allowed? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Anything the community has consensus for, and where that consensus is reached in an appropriate venue, is allowed (not the least because Consensus can change). I think preventing ourselves from covering any new exploits DePaço might get up to - things we would know are not covered by the court order - would be a mistake. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood--was Tamzin's proposal not to flat convert the page to the template and lock it? Was it to just leave the template forever as a marker but allow open editing?

If the former, my modified suggestion is to have the locked page link to the entire page history, essentially, and final version, like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caesar_DePa%C3%A7o&action=history&offset=&limit=5000

So the live active locked version is JUST the banner with a link to history, and then the NEXT "finale" version of the article also carries the banner. So working backward: Live/only banner/locked > live with banner > whatever the next to last version. Lock > add template > erase everything under the template and replace with links to history and announcement etc. > never touch "article" again.

But if the idea is just to put the banner up top and that's it, I support any variation. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That is essentially his solution, but modified to fit our needs. His lawyer will be fine with that. Techie3 (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Blank and replace with community notice, per Tamzin. What would present DePaco from coming back to this well now that the first lawsuit has succeeded? The situation is actively dangerous to any Wikipedian who restores the contested content on en. or pt.wp and it behooves us to not only protect our editors but also signal that this sort of thing will not have the effect DePaco wishes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

DePaco wishes for more content to be removed, so that is the effect Depaco wishes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

He doesn't wish it removed, he wishes it memory-holed. There is a distinct difference. Removed implies he's fine with others knowing about it in some form, "memory-holed" implies he wants this buried for good so that nobody knows about it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: do you not see how keeping the article at all is basically us bending over to his desires? If we cannot provide full information on a topic, we should not provide any. It is a disservice to our readers to provide them an article that is whitewashed with a statement at the top that 90% of users are going to scroll past in the first place. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I firmly believe removing the entire article does more to bend to his desires than keeping the article. He doesn't want a lot of information available about him on the internet, including information that remains in our article after he sued to get rid of it. I can't help but wonder if he won't want information on the internet about actions not yet taken, which this consensus would prevent us from covering. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if this is allowed, but the community statement proposed by Tamzin could include a link to the archived version of the Wikipedia page (the Wayback Machine has a snapshot of the June 20, 2025 version of the article). Some1 (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

We can use the banner to provide archives and older versions. We can also add news reports and community pages to the blanked page. — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 03:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

P.S. WMF have bent. More or less doesn't matter. — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 03:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I would say that it's not about which action would do the perpetrator more favor, but rather which action would do ourselves (the wiki) the favor. I am in agreement with "we cannot provide full information on a topic, we should not provide any". If he somehow likes that more than a whitewashed article then shrug? 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That is actually what he wants more, complete removal of the article. That is his first claim. His alternative claim is to remove the offending parts. Techie3 (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

This isn't about his desires. It's about our reputation. If we continue to serve the public a page that has been scrubbed of well-sourced, truthful information just because it is negative, we are not adhering to a NPOV. It does not matter if the rest of the information is good. It doesn't matter if the rest of the information is NPOV. The article by definition cannot be NPOV because we cannot publish part of the information. And if we leave it up in any form, even with a notice, we are misleading our users. Because 90% of people ignore the tags at the top of articles. If you go pull any article that's tagged with {{NPOV}} and send it to one of your friends that knows nothing about Wikipedia, they're almost certainly going to skip right past it. Hell, tags don't even show up on the mobile website - I don't know about the apps/etc. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The page has not been scrubbed of of well-sourced, truthful information... this hyperbole bears little resemblance to what actually happened here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Honorary Consulate of Portugal, Florida; I agree with the "replace with banner" !votes on their reasoning (that it's better to say nothing than to say a biased version), but we may as well heal into a consistent state given that rather than deliberately leaving a visible sore (I'm aware this is a minority position, as it's the same logic that led me to delink the ANI article when it was forcibly taken down, so the community is welcome to disagree, but that's still my position) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Per Tamzins suggestion, blank and place a banner. This would protect future editors, as WMF is unable to guarantee anonymity of editors. If Wikipedia is serious about editor retention, it needs to do more to protect us all. Knitsey (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I am from Portuguese Wikipédia and here we don't know exactly what the office changes means. As far as we can understand, there is nothing stopping any editor from mentioning the facts again. Are we getting this wrong? Personally, I believe that the banner proposed is not bad, however, but more as a way of sending a message of collective discontent than a totally practical decision. Augustresende (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
@Augustresende: Anyone who readds the content faces legal peril if they do so, from my understanding of it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
There is some people that just don't care about this risk because of other jurisdiction, bureaucracy, and so on... Augustresende (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that some of the information was reintroduced by editors on pt.Wikipedia. Knitsey (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
No, there is no current edit that re-adds content right now. Augustresende (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
It has a lot more detail about the donations to Chega and his personal relationship with some of the party leaders. Knitsey (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but that's because the WMF office action didn't remove it. They strictly removed the content stated in the court order. It was probably more broader removals here in the english wikipedia because the terms were more vague than the excerpts from the portuguese one. Just a guess, though. Augustresende (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining that Augustresende. Knitsey (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

What do you think about adding Tamzin's banner and instead of replacing, but reducing article info to absolute essential so that it does not break NPOV? Augustresende (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
What is "[absolutely] essential", and what stops DePaco from complaining about it in another SLAPP? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Then the WMF will probably fight and appeal that as far as possible too. Like in the ANI vs WMF thing, it may or may not work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The first sentence of WP:NPOV states that maintaining a neutral point of view means representing "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and this is expanded upon in the WP:DUE section. There is no version of the article that can meet npov now that the inclusion of such information has been prohibited. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep and put the banner on the page per Tamzin. Ternera (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Do what Tamzin said, or at least delete it. The only readers we have to serve are those who respect WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. (First explained on the Chinese Wikipedia's Village Pump (Article affairs) to argue against unsourced fancrufts, but it applies to a much larger scale, that we are not here to serve all people in the world, and our only readers would not like to read anything breaching our pillars.) So now NPOV is breached, and the article is ruined that no legitimate readers would like to read it. Therefore, from a sane reader's perspective, having the entire article gone would not be any more harmful than having parts of the content gone. A banner would be needed to explain what happened, and for this purpose, the page is better not deleted and should be replaced by the banner, though deletion is acceptable if adding the banner is not.

The above points are made purely from Wikipedia's ideology. If that's too hard to do (because there are readers, under a loose definition, who don't strictly respect the pillars), or if a consensus cannot be reached on this method, stubtify might be a choice. We can keep only the basic descriptions, i.e. something like "César Manuel Cardoso Matos do Paço (born 21 September 1965), also known as Caesar DePaço, is a Portuguese businessman. He is the chief executive officer of Summit Nutritionals International, a food-industry company." (and that's it), and add a banner to the bottom telling both readers and editors why this article is shrunk. Stubtify is my routine job when I meet articles (esp. BLPs) that look nothing like a Wikipedia article due to serious violations of the three core content policies, and this article is violating WP:NPOV like hell.

And in response to Barkeep49's concerns, I believe that "just putting up some statement in response" would not discourage WMF. But instead, having a strong statement on the page would draw public attention to the issue, and keeping the contents would be effectively staying silent. We have done protests in the past, such as the one that blanked the entire Wikipedia but one page, and drew public attention. Knowing that we would nuke the article in case of an enforcement (which would be going against the goal of helping everyone to "share in the sum of all knowledge"), the WMF may put more effort into maintaining the integrity of articles. And MediaKyle's concerns are addressed in the first paragraph, that we are only supposed to serve those who respect our core values.

As this page uses a level-3 heading instead of a level-2 one, I may not receive notifications from this page. Feel free to ping me, or leave a message on my Chinese Wikipedia talk page if something has to be answered as soon as possible. 1F616EMO (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Btw, the reference "ionline 2021" is not defined in the current version. I am asking the WMF to check the suppressed version and restore that tag if it was accidentally removed. 1F616EMO (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Wait, it's not WMF's fault. 1F616EMO (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep, add a banner, oppose replacing with a statement - whether an article is kept or not should be based on WP:N, not on editor sentiment about the extent to which English Wikipedia should be subject to various countries' laws and court orders. I am opposed to throwing out our own policies and guidelines in order to make a statement that we disagree with a court order. This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for activism... not even activism in support of online encyclopedias. We can put the statement on the main page if we want, but we shouldn't mess with article content to further our own political goals. We need to have integrity -- we need to follow our own policies and guidelines, not use article space for political statements. I support adding some kind of banner to the article noting that some content was removed due to court order; readers should be made aware. (BTW, I don't know the details of what was removed or why, but unless and until we know, we should all keep open at least the possibility that the content that was removed actually was defamatory and it's a good thing it was removed. I'd prefer it were removed through the regular editorial process rather than court order, but without knowing the details, I'm not ready to decide that the removal was or was not justified.) Levivich (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Allowing the remaining content to remain would be akin to allowing a subject of an article, through a clear SLAPP lawsuit, to dictate the content of their article. If we allow this to stand, we are doing a disservice to our readers by allowing the subject to dictate what remains public or not. If the WMF is going to bend over and take a bum-fucking by an obvious SLAPP lawsuit like this, we should not tolerate that by allowing any content about the subject to remain on the wiki. In other words, the subject FA'ed. Now the subject needs to FO that enwp isn't going to allow them to choose what content is available or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

It is not at all akin to that. It's not the subject who required the removal, it's the court. Levivich (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Blank and banner, per Tamzin. If the person does not want certain content about them to be in the public view, we are under zero obligation to post any content about them. This is something that enwp needs to send a message to WMF and the public even more than the SOPA/PIPA blackout did. The WMF has failed all wikis they operate with this decision. And we should not stand by and allow the WMF to force BS office actions on enwp with BS reasoning. The WMF is requiring we do not republish the specific information. The WMF cannot, however, require us to publish any information. I would support any banner that is substantially similar to the following: The English Wikipedia maintained an article on Caesar DePaço that complied with our content policies - including that all information, especially potentially negative information, was sourced to reliable secondary sources. This complies with our policy on biographies of living persons. The subject of this article did not like some of the information that was included in this article about them - and they were able to perpetuate a successful SLAPP suit against the WMF that the WMF believes requires some information to be removed from this article. In protest of both the lawsuit and the WMF's compliance with it, the English Wikipedia has chosen to blank this article - the prior content can be found in its history.

The banner needs to make clear three things - 1) this was an illegal SLAPP attempt. 2) the WMF should never have complied with it. 3) ENWP is not going to tolerate the WMF bending over and taking the bum-fuck that this office action shows they're willing to do. If nothing changes, this may very well be my last comment/edit to any WMF project before I scramble my password. This is absolutely absurd. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep and add a banner, giving as much of the judgement as we can legally quote to make it clear the sort of thing that's been removed. I'm sympathetic to Tamzin's approach but we're an encyclopedia, and I think our duty to our readers is to give them the information we can give them, as well as to let them know about the legal obstacles and censoring. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Our duty to our readers is to provide an encyclopedia article. If we cannot do so because of a court order, it is a disservice to our readers to only provide information the subject wants provided. As such, we should not provide any information until we can provide full and complete information. Otherwise we are allowing a subject to whitewash their article to what they want it to be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Tamzin's solution. I've sat with this a bit. I'm sympathetic to the idea that we should have an article, but in the present state we can't write one that conforms with our policies. Mackensen (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Blank and banner per Tamzin, full protect: An article who's contents are dictated by its subject is fundamentally incompatible with WP:NPOV. It would be against policy to keep it. There is an additional concern that if an editor were to unwittingly re-add information that the Portuguese courts has deemed illegal they may be exposed to an acute legal risk. Blanking, bannering, and locking the page protects the integrity of Wikipedia's neutrality, and protects editors. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep, add Tamzin notice, but quote the court order's description of the removed content in that notice, if WMF legal doesn't prevent it. Otherwise, how will any editor know what not to add? --tony 03:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete or Tamzin's banner. What a damn shame. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Why are we censoring Wikipedia just because some judge in other country said so? Tell them to eat shit. What are they going to do? Wikipedia doesn't have servers in Portugal why are we listening to their stupid demands? Yilku1 (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Yilku1: We have Portuguese editors, who WMF tried to protect the personally-identifying information of while opposing the lawsuit. They are the ones in the most legal peril as a consequence of the court case. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 04:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have eaten the sh*t. Now we have to choose between telling the world we don't like eating sh*t, and pretending not to have eaten any. — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 04:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

…then wikipedia will be sued to oblivion by portugal 78.100.33.186 (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Yilku1: When people are voting keep (including "keep with alternative banner" suggestion) they are voting to keep the censored version, to my knowledge. Keeping the whole thing is out of the question. There is a legal binding order from a judiciary of a sovereign (and democratic) country. You do not ignore that just because you don't like it. (My vote is replace with Tamzin's banner, for context.)

Your "keep" vote is NOT the keep votes being tallied here. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Blank and banner and full protect, delete if WFM says we can't do a banner. I have very little faith that the WMF is going to continue it's mission to avoid censorship if it's giving into a slap suit. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 12:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment: can't this be snow closed or is that way too early

2A04:7F80:37:24E6:FC26:2594:4EC:AED7 (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep and banner per Mike Christie. I would suggest that we not blank the article, just add a tag on top as Tamzin suggested, but something more limited and more similar to other tags used in articles with issues. Something like

I think it says all we need to say without making it seem like we're using mainspace for activism. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Editors seeking to add missing information should make sure they are in compliance with the legal requirements.

How do you comply with legal court orders of what not to add, if you can't list what you can't add on Wikipedia for people to know what not to add to be legally compliant? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

As a netizen from China, I'm really familiar with this XD. This is really getting dystopian. — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 03:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

This reminds me of the demands for clarity on where our harassment policies were lacking in re the Fram scandal, albeit with far worse ramifications for the editors involved. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

If you can't figure it out, you don't edit the article, just as an average editor wouldn't edit advanced maths or physics articles. The point is to let readers know there's issues with the article and to let editors know to be careful. It's not intended to be a perfect solution. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Misunderstanding an equation does not carry a risk of having your personal information being exposed to the Portuguese legal system, and litigious persons utilizing it. I understand this is an analogy, but it is a poor one that is nowhere near representative of the actual risks involved. Asking editors to just "figure it out" when there are serious demonstrated risks is entirely inadequate. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Blank, add banner, and protect: Per Tamzin and fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four. We clearly can't keep the article the way it is now, since it would send a message that subjects can sue the WMF to get what they want on Wikipedia. Additionally, this is now a legal landmine and locking the article would protect unaware editors from being sued by malevolent parties. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I am from Indonesian Wikipedia and highly endorse Tamzin suggestion. As that article also available in id.wp, I strongly oppose WMF decision and they must doing more better to us as "backbone of the movement". Without us, what they can do? --Nohirara (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Blank & banner & full protect. Second choice is delete. The article cannot possibly be WP:NPOV, so it cannot be kept. WP:5P2 trumps WP:N. Leijurv (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Blank, add banner, and protect. Removing material critical of the subject simply because they do not like it compromises our purpose, and I would rather have no article than a censored one. I give no weight to arguments about the "rule of law": there are a large number of countries in which the law itself is antithetical to our purpose, and we have quite intentionally chosen as a movement to ignore it. We should do the same here. We are restricted to publishing information that is in the public domain in reliable sources. If and when we have strayed from that article subjects are entitled to some redressal, but that is clearly not the case here, and moreover we have processes for that. I am sympathetic to the argument that we have a duty to our readers and ought to present what information we can, but there is a point at which censored information is worse than none, and I would rather draw the line in the sand where it is clear, rather than engage in debate about which articles are compromised and which not, which increasingly appears to be the direction we are headed in. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Agree with Tamzin, with a comment - to help accommodate the concerns of those who said keep, maybe instead of a lengthy paragraph that makes it sound like a protest, instead make the description more technical that we're just following both internal and external requirements. 1) We can't include all information because of a legal order, and 2) we can't include a cherry-picked information because of a core guideline comprising the mission of the website. The solution is to have neither.

Oh, and WMF should formally respond to Caesar DePaço that any account he makes on Wikipedia will be indefinitely blocked until the lawsuit/court order is retracted or expired. If he makes a demand he should understand that so can WMF. You decide whether that's a sincere suggestion. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to an article on the lawsuit/court order/controversy.[23] [24] [25] We can explain in the article what has happened, what was removed and why. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Blank and add community statement per Tamzin Was on the fence about this, but then came to the conclusion that an article that is forcibly altered (in this case, censored) by court order is not an article worth keeping. Some1 (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep and banner per Barkeep, Levivich, and Mike Christie. There is enough information available about the subject, even without certain details, that he qualifies for a Wikipedia article. It's true that this article is no longer NPOV, but if we removed all the other information about a subject just because he has a dispute with Wikipedia, that wouldn't be NPOV either. The article should stay, and we should let readers seek the information elsewhere so that the Streisand effect can run its course on its own. I support Usedtobecool's banner idea, particularly its statement that the article's neutrality may be compromised. I believe this would communicate the point just as well as blanking the page would, while still maintaining some encyclopedic information. I would also consider adding a very conspicuous link to a news article about the case (as a one-time exception to WP:LINKSTOAVOID), as long as that wouldn't be considered contempt of the court or anything.
Alternatively, keep the article, and add a paragraph in the "Career" section that's just "█ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ ."^[Humor] — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Well, people are saying that if an article is gone, it is vacuously true that it is NPOV. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Either delete or banner per Tamzin with no text visible front-facing (aka in history tab only) a la the ANI case. I am opposed to keeping this article in a state where the text is visible to the reader. Especially with the tag - maintenance tags are supposed to be temporary, and this would not be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Blank, add banner and protect per Tamzin. in my small history of editing, this is the most chilling thing I have seen. as a Portuguese editor, I feel shame for our courts and symphathy for my fellow editors that were held liable for exercising their right to free expression. a protest blackout in Portugal and in the Portuguese-language projects would receive my support. thank you to Quark and Tamzin for your thoughts and swiftness and thank you to the future closer. Juwan (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
~~Strongest possible keep~~, with a section appropriately covering the court case and quoting the court on what, exactly, was required to be removed from the article. We could even cite the sources we had before the ruling (dug up from the Internet Archive as needed) without repeating the claims made. Those who see more censorship (blanking) as the correct response to censorship have got it backwards, and I strongly oppose any outcome that prevents us covering the court ruling in usual, encyclopedic style, per WP:NOTCENSORED. Toadspike [Talk] 05:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
The court's and WMF's decision supersedes WP:NOTCENSORED. The article is already censored in its present outcome of cutting certain parts of the article, fait accompli. The question is which solution minimizes more losses of Wikipedia necessities, and there's an argument made here that the "losses" here don't mean mere quantity of text content: no article is better than censored version of article. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I have since learned that the article was likely created for undisclosed payments. It should be deleted, and we can create an article on the court case instead. Toadspike [Talk] 14:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Blank, protect and add community statement per Tamzin is the best way to go. There is no way such actions have to go "unpunished". If this Caesar wanted to "clean up" his tarnished name, let us "assist" in making his name scrubbed clean. If we didn't take action today, some people would take the same path as this guy, and many will gladly follow his path. It is better for Wikipedia to NOT have an article on someone than having a censored version of the article. Imagine if <insert your hated politician here> succeeded in forcing Wikipedia to clean about <his past misdeed>. It would be very terrible. We should also "reword" the community statement to nudge the public to "seek information elsewhere". ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 06:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep with Barkeep-style prominent banner warning in header. The Streisand Effect will frustrate DePaco's attempt to censor his article, and it's best for all concerned if we allow that to happen.—S Marshall T/C 06:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Blank and banner per Tamzin. We need to maintain WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED and cannot allow others to take this as a precedent. Since both of the policies above cannot be maintained, neither should this article stand. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 07:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Blank and banner per all the above. Anyone arguing that this is allowing him to 'win' would be well placed to remember the Striesand effect, keeping the article or a simple BLAR will allow this to fade away, a banner will make people want to look into exactly what was removed and why. CoconutOctopus talk 07:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep per WP:N but the new banner currently in the article seems ok. Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Office_action:_Removals_on_the_article_Caesar_DePaço, we might be in a bit of a "This is something, so we should do it" phase. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Blank, protect, and banner per Tamzin with a comment: Is there no way we can link to the last uncensored version hosted on, for example, the Internet Archive? Does that break the court order if Wikipedia wouldn't be hosting the content? I fucking hate that Wikipedia has been put in this position, and would rather no article at all vs a censored version with all the legal danger it puts editors in - but feel like linking to the last "clean" version so that readers at least see something..? qcne (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm a little curious on what article content was actually lost, it doesn't seem to be the Chega thing, Chega is mentioned 6 times. Perhaps the Spanish WP-article is less censored, it's much longer atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep, do not blank, the banner as it is now is fine. We should not be removing notable content.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Replace with a soft redirect to (Redacted). Qdfghj22 (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete. If the subject doesn't want us to have an article that complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then we're better off having no article. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:43C6:46BB:FF20:77E4 (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

By that logic, we should not have an article on Donald Trump. Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Why, has he said something? My understanding is that the man loves attention, and it probably pissed him off that he was only the 5th mostly viewed article last year.

But yes, a lot of articles would have to go by that standard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Blank, banner by Tamzin, & protect. Neutrality is the second pillar of Wikipedia, and WP:NPOV states This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. So I do not support having a biased article on the site. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Blank and replace with statement/banner per Tamzin and others above. Wikipedia has clear guidelines about neutrality, and if the page cannot abide by our policies then we should not host it. Additionally, taking a stand on this and removing the page would show other people/entities that SLAPP suits aren't going to get them more favorable coverage. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment Do not blank without considering the image problem. He wanted to close the page in the injunction. The courts rejected closing the page. He will claim victory if the editors effective does it for him anyway. Techie3 (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Also, the court said, in paraphrase, "Some of the facts complained of are false. The applicant showed evidence to the Court that they were false." as one of the reason it decided the case. It is probable wrong about balance, but this is much harder to work with. Techie3 (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe we can stubify it instead of blanking it, leaving something like

César Manuel Cardoso Matos do Paço [...] is a Portuguese businessman. His lawyer threatened legal action if Wikipedia did not remove information DePaço considered fraudulent; this included the mention of a one-time donation he made to Chega, a right-wing political party in Portugal.
DePaço subsequently sued Wikipedia and editors. This is a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
beneath the banner. — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 11:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The Stirland Effect is powerful, this will backfire on whoever this guy is. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep, banner and protect per Very Polite Person. They are right: any person who wants to edit this article in its censored form will be walking a legal minefield, and it is essentially the community's and the Foundation's duty to protect people from further court actions. --Deinocheirus (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep with banner Having thoroughly checked the last pre-redaction archived version on the internet archive from the 20th of June and the WMF redacted version, the changes to the English Wikipedia article are overall minor and do not fundamentally compromise the article's neutrality. Blanking the article would just be giving DePaco what he wants. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I was hoping someone could be arsed to check and tell me. To lazy to do it myself atm. We (non-admins) have lost article history, but it's possible earlier versions actually did have some seriously false info. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
(Just a note that most admins too cannot see the history since it's been oversighted.) CoconutOctopus talk 12:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Glad someone brought this up. There's actually a lot more that can be added to the article too, specifically about his nutrition company. I encourage folks to go translate the Portuguese article and read it. If someone is brave enough to do some translating, this page could be very informative while still dancing around the very specific information barred in the court order. MediaKyle (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Stick to WP:BLP-good stuff though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

How does this protect future unaware editors from being sued and their data exposed in Portugal if they unwittingly add again the "bad information"? We aren't even allowed to discuss or explain what the bad information is now on-wiki. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

How does this protect future unaware editors from being sued and their data exposed in Portugal if they unwittingly add again the "bad information"? We aren't even allowed to discuss or explain what the bad information is now on-wiki. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Support Tamzin's suggestion Blank the page and replace it with a banner. If we are incapable of making a neutral article about this subject then we should not have an article about him. Instead we should indicate just that he has used lawfare to prevent us from having a neutral article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep, add banner, fully protect (edit conflict, so I'll skip my reasoning) - Donald Albury 12:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete - no immense loss to the project if this article doesn't exist, and the banner seems pointless to me, since in 10 years, nobody is going to give a rats ass about this whole incident. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:43C6:46BB:FF20:77E4 (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Blank, banner, protect aka Tamzin's solution, although I could also support a similar solution where we stubify instead of fully blanking. I looked at what the court ruling removed and what the article now looks like, and this is a blatant NPOV violation. This article's neutrality has been compromised and we would be doing readers a disservice by keeping it up. I sincerely hope this doesn't become the new norm, but until the legal issues disappear, I don't believe we should retain this article. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep - stubify, banner, link to external archive of article before SLAPP, EC lock.

As far as I can tell, this court order merely directs the removal of information on that specific page, and not the directing to it anywhere else on the Internet. If Mr. DePaço doesn't have anything to do other than suing everyone, he can try. On the other hand, I really don't see a reason to full lock the page. The stubification would involve basic info, no detailed pre-2025 info, and mentioning the controversy + any future developments. The point of this is to tell readers who aren't familiar with all this that they're on the correct page, with slightly added hassle of clicking on another link to see detailed pre-2025 info on the subject, due to the unfortunate circumstances. As a compromise with concerns of legal risks, maybe an extended confirmed lock is not a bad idea, to prevent newbies from making legally precarious rookie mistakes. However, I must disagree with full blanking, and full protection. Afaict from the discussions, Mr. DePaço's ideal outcome is removal of the article, so we especially shouldn't do that, although we shouldn't be setting such a precedent regardless. The article is compliant with our policies, so it should exist in at least some satisfactory form; this should be non-negotiable. Basic info + no detailed pre-2025 info would ensure NPOV is not violated. In case we cannot link a third party archive in the body, we should inform readers how to obtain such material independently. To be clear, this would come in the form of an External links section, with slight needed modifications. Dege31 (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

It's got to be at least EC-protected. You see, there's a very toxic combination here: (1) There are things we can't say; (2) We can't tell our editors what those things are; and (3) Mr DePaço has a history of forcing the WMF to reveal identifying information about people who say those unspecified things. Therefore it's irresponsible to allow the article to be edited by inexperienced people. Personally I'm in favour of full protection.—S Marshall T/C 13:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Again, I could be wrong, but it appears to me we only cannot include that content on the specific page. However, if we simply forbid and remove any detailed info about him pre-2025, as I proposed, that should solve even this potential issue. Dege31 (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Like I said above, I would be willing to support stubification as an alternative to blanking, as long as the article is restricted to a max of two paragraphs (one for basic info and one for the WMF court case). QuicoleJR (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Dege31 (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Blank and add a banner per Tamzin. I would advocate for a banner to include both a link to the "most recent acceptable version" based on the WMF redactions and a link to the legal judgement itself. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Blank and banner per Tamzin's reasoning. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Blank, banner, and fully protect per Tasmin. Wikipedia cannot possibly allow an article to be modified using the law as a weapon. FaviFake (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep and banner per Barkeep, Levivich, and Hemiauchenia. Including a banner recapping the situation is important for acknowledging that the article content is compromised, but blanking the article feels a bit POINTy to me; the legal judgment was fairly specific in what it prohibits, so I feel the best approach would be to write a high-quality article where we can and be explicit about identifying the places where that standard is unable to be met. To that end, I would also propose that the article or banner include, as much as is safely possible, descriptions of what type of content was removed pursuant to the court order. Perhaps by quoting the legal judgment itself, if that's permissible? But I'm not a lawyer by any means, so I can't offer more than general opinions here. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep and banner on talk page, not in mainspace: Servers are hosted in the USA, I don't see that a Portuguese court ruling affects America. but I'm not a lawyer. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
@Oaktree b: The court order has already been complied with as an office action. This discussion is on whether to keep the whitewashed version of the page or remove the page entirely in protest. Disregarding the court ruling is not an option here. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

We (most people at least) are trying to avoid Portugal blocking Wikipedia over this. Dege31 (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure AfD is the proper forum to be discussing this, shouldn't this be an admin discussion? Sticking a banner on an article isn't really arguing notability is my point. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree AfD is probably not the "correct" venue, but the train has passed. Dege31 (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
We'd have to pretty much semi-protect the page, otherwise some random editor can just happen upon the article in the future and add the information that was removed by the court order. If we're going down that road, you'll need to somehow put up a warning sign/flag/something for future editors... I'm frankly amazed this hasn't been appealed; a French court tried something a few years ago about a military listening post and the information was retained. This would seem to go against acceptable speech limitations in Europe, should be appealed to the European court by Wikimedia corporate. I'm not sure putting up a banner sends the right message. Keep something on the talk page and semi protect the article, but a banner in main space sends the wrong message. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I suppose we could create an article about the court ruling, discussing what was removed. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete & replace with banner as per Tamzin. This would provide transparency to the readers while not infringing nor contempting the court order. EmpAhmadK (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Blank, banner, protect. Seems like there is now precedent for editors' identities to be exposed if they get involved here, so it seems like the best thing we as the community can do to keep ourselves safe and in compliance with content policies. WindTempos _they ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Status Quo The current banner on the article seems sufficient to me. Having compared the archive.org archive of the article from June 2025 with the Office-redacted version (note the previous edit to the article before the redatcion was in April), I find that most of the information described in the VPWMF thread was already not present in the article; all I see removed are one sentence in the lead and a corresponding sentence in the body relating to the ending of the Honorary Consulship (although they left in a suspiciously specific denial, In late January 2021, DePaço's attorney Rui Barreira told Macao newspaper Ponto Final that DePaço was not dismissed from his position, but resigned on his own initiative 😀), and one other removed sentence that probably has to do with "the existence of the AB Foundation". I don't see that Office had to remove anything about crimes since 1989, or anything about "the claim that the applicant was barred from obtaining any Portuguese document". OTOH, I would support an addition of the direct quote from the judicial order about what must be omitted, if that's ok with WMF Legal. Anomie ⚔ 14:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
How does this protect future unaware editors from being sued and their data exposed in Portugal if they unwittingly add again the "bad information"? We aren't even allowed to discuss or explain what the bad information is now on-wiki. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
@Very Polite Person: how does blanking the page protect future unaware editors from being sued and their data exposed in Portugal? I don't think that such protection is possible but we'd also have to blank Chega (political party) and a half dozen other pages just to deal with this single incident... But the issue here isn't limited to the individual its related to the Portuguese courts so we'd have to blank every page related to Portugal or a Portuguese citizen. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That's far from clear at this point. It's quite possible that we could quote the judicial order on the talk page, since only en:DePaço and pt:Caesar DePaço were subject to the order. It may even be possible to quote the order in the article, but that's a question for the lawyers. P.S. You may want to check WP:BLUDGEON, as you seem to have added this same comment in replies several times here. Anomie ⚔ 15:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Blank, banner, protect per Tamzin and others. Editors cannot be guessing at what to add or edit under threat of exposure, and so we will never have a complete article. LizardJr8 (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
(reedit) Keep but also keep a visible statement at the top per Tamzin and others (which makes sense given the unprecedented actions being taken without discussion by the WMF). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
... you mean by the Portuguese government, right? The WMF has done everything in their power to fight this ruling. FaviFake (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

As I understand it, WMF doesn't generally say much about ongoing court cases, since lawyers say it's a bad idea. The have comment on this in the past though: High stakes for the Wikimedia projects in Portugal: Fighting a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep, delete & replace with banner just feels childish and petty... I also can't square it with policy or guideline, even IAR. I would also note that as others have said we are allowed an article on the court case (and if the subject disagrees they can get another court ruling...), its still due for coverage somewhere on wiki even if we can't do it directly here. I would also note that most of the people voting here have no skin in the game but are making decisions based on what they think would be safest for other editors, I have 30 edits to the page... Censorship in the name of safety doesn't make us safer, it makes us easier targets for this sort of thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I also can't square it with policy or guideline

Well, the other option is also hard to square with our policies. The 1st sentence of WP:NPOV says that maintaining a neutral point of view means representing "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and this is expanded upon in the WP:DUE section. No version of this article can meet npov now that we can't include such information. FaviFake (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
That's debatable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

It says that we strive for NPOV... But NPOV is a theoretical goal, there isn't a single truly NPOV article on wiki. No article *ever* truly meets NPOV. As a longtime editor of this article I'm convinced that most people here don't actually know what was removed or its significance. What we have now is more or less NPOV, a lot less was cut than some seem to think. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment: From a PaG standpoint: Wikipedia:Notability#Why we have these requirements says the purpose of Notability is to ensure every article that we include can eventually meet our content policy and guidelines based on the current information available. For example, We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. If it is impossible for the article to comply with NeutralPointOfView, I would say this article violates the spirit rather than the letter of Notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

"If it is impossible for the article to comply with NeutralPointOfView" having done a lot of NPOV work on this article pre-court ruling (mostly to remove pro-DePaço fluff) I would say that its not impossible or even difficult. Anyone who has done more work on the article than me is welcome to challenge that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Does it, though? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the content via the Wayback Machine and it was a major portion of the article. I disagree with Hemiauchenia's assertion that the redactions are overall minor and do not compromise the article's neutrality. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you comparing to the current version or the version immediately after the office action[26]? Most of the changes between the archived and current version is the result of edits other than the office edit. What was removed was not a major portion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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 G4'ed‎. (non-admin closure) Nathannah • 📮 14:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

CaseOh

AfDs for this article:

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

This subject has not enjoyed WP:SIGCOV by reliable sources any more than when 1) WP:Articles for deletion/CaseOh and WP:Articles for deletion/CaseOh (streamer) happened or 2) Draft:CaseOh was declined repeatedly for failures as to WP:ANYBIO, WP:RS, and WP:BLPSPS (interview-sourced content). The WP:SALT should be reapplied. JFHJr (㊟) 00:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, and Arkansas. JFHJr (㊟) 00:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Deb: any input on further salting? You salted this previously, but it has expired. I also speedy'd the TP namespace in the last week or so. It got recreated in the wrong namespace (see logs, dels). JFHJr (㊟) 00:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Relevant: WP:Source assessment/CaseOh. JFHJr (㊟) 02:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete and Salt per nomination. I searched on Google but there's no other reliable sources for him. ROY is WAR Talk! 04:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete and Salt per nom. Just because something is online, it's not necessarily a good ref on WP, particularly not in a WP:BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Can do. I only put an expiration time because I thought it was possible things might change, but this time I'll make it permanent. Deb (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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.

MK (channel)

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

No significant coverage, fails WP:GNG ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 00:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and South Africa. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 00:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

LuLu the Piggy

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

Fails WP:THREE, see the DYK nom. Laun chba ller 00:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and China. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Marie-Louise Hosdey

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:NOLY and WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only 1 google news hit. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Belgium. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
If it is not kept, I would strongly recommend a redirect to Shooting at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Women's 10 metre air rifle as an ATD. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

[1] "In this Workmen's Compensation proceeding brought by Maria D. Hallock, appellant, the sole disputed question is who was the employer of the deceased, Thomas P. Hallock, at the time of his death on July 15, 1960. Appellant claims he was an employee of respondent, Trans World Airlines (TWA). The respondent claims he was always an employee of Ethiopian Air Lines (EAL) and had never been a TWA 637*637 employee. The referee and the Industrial Commission ruled that he was not an employee of TWA and denied compensation. On appeal, the circuit court affirmed."

[1]