Jump to content

User:LinguistAtLarge/Today's AfD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 November 4 for convenience.
< November 03 November 05 >

Purge server cache

2025 Varanasi gang rape

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

For an event to be presumed notable on Wikipedia, it must demonstrate lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. Indeed, going further, and we get most crimes[...] – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. This is a fairly high bar, and not one this article topic appears to pass.

Created in the week after the event was reported, but it wasn't even posted at ITN because, unfortunately, gang rapes are much too common in India and nobody could see any WP:LASTING impact.[1] Several months later, that remains true. There's been a handful of news article doubting the 19 year old's story, evidence that at least one claim may be false (which is why we don't write sensitive articles with breaking news stories), an announcement that the police stopped arresting people after new evidence emerged, and a few news stories when the SIT report was released, saying only that it couldn't rule out that a crime had occurred [2][3][4], but that's it. - Admittedly, my WP:BEFORE was hampered by the fact that that there were several gang rapes in Varanasi this year and last, (Wikipedia:ROTM) and the 2024 case kept coming up instead of the 2025 case, but I'm still not seeing sufficient, continued coverage. While Modi and a few other public figures made statements (or campaign promises) at the time, there were no mass protests, no actual change effected, and, as such, no more sources to work with. The article also has many BLP issues - the first revision was the worst, but it still presents many claims as facts in wikivoice ("[X Name][...]later threatened to circulate the footage as revenge porn."..."he raped her before leaving her in the Nadesar area"... "man identified as [Y NAME], who took her to his residence in the Hukulganj area" - some of these are taken directly from quotes attributed to the mother, and the newspapers do not state them in their own voice. I shouldn't need to explain to anybody what that's problematic.

TL:DR; Could this be notable in the future? Yes, absolutely. Is it now? The sources don't indicate so, and we are, by design, a lagging indicator of notability. If we were to have an article on this subject, it should be based on high quality, non-breaking news stories. It should be balanced, respectful of the living people whose lives were impacted by the event, and not be based on two weeks worth of breaking news coverage. I'm willing to push NEVENT a bit for events that are very likely to be notable, such as airline crashes or natural disasters, but not crimes. Let the world write the sources first, and we'll follow. Against ATDs for BLP reasons. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 23:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and India. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 23:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Orientls (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability at this moment seems highly unlikely. Agletarang (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. — EarthDude (Talk) 12:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and a complete dearth of WP:PERSISTENT or SIGCOV in reliable sources makes it impossible to support a standalone article, particularly considering the BLP implications. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep The news has gotten significant coverage in the Indian press including India Today, the Hindustan Times, and the Times of India/. In addition the incident has prompted an official response from Modi. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
    Read WP:BREAKING and WP:NOTNEWS. Zalaraz (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: I see WP:SIGCOV as this been nationally reported across the country of 1.4 Billion. it clearly meets the WP:GNG through significant, in-depth national coverage from numerous reliable sources like The Hindu, The Hindustan Times, and The Indian Express. It also satisfies WP:LASTING with sustained follow-up reporting on its real-world consequences, including the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), the transfer of a senior IPS officer, and the PMO seeking a report on the case.Longewal (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
    No, it doesn't. This is a routine crime news, especially in a country like India. Some government moves are not indication of notability. Zalaraz (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
    While I understand where you're coming from, the fact that there was an investigation is expected, not a reason for notability and internal personal changes is not a LASTING impact. For that, we'd be looking for something like what happened in the Nirbhaya case: mass protests sweeping the country, serious calls for change, going to the Supreme Court- and we've got sources discussing all that. And I'm not saying those sources will never exist for this one - somebody could wake up tomorrow and start writing a book on it. But we only write articles once we've got sources, the sources just aren't there yet. And that's resulted in serious BLP issues, that could potentially negatively impact all the parties, especially the teenage girl. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Per BLP issues and WP:NOTNEWS. Zalaraz (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep I am the article's original creator but others have contributed significantly to it. There are two issues here. One is compliance with WP:BLPCRIME with regard to names of involved people, and the other is WP:GNG of the overall event. I think the major complaint here is BLPCRIME, and I propose 1) WP:TNT to restart the article but omit all names while 2) confirming that this overall event passes GNG, and that a remake without names is welcome. The event happened in April 2025 and the last major update was the special investigation report in July. Modi the Prime Minister commented on it, which is unusual for any such case, and also this case has been in many newspapers over months. I count 3 major gang sexual assault incidents in the media, in this town, since this incident, so doing Internet search to sort the cases is a bit confusing. The two most unusual sources are the Prime Minister's statement and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) report which says, "Can’t be denied that the accused committed the crime". There are other unusual media items, including the primary source police interview which secondary sources report, and various articles which share the perspective of the accused.
@GreenLipstickLesbian: You mentioned risk to the victim, whom I think is not named in any of the identified articles. Do you see a risk to the victim for this article existing if 1) she is not named and 2) the accused are not named? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Since you pinged: GNG is not relevant: as an event article, NEVENT applies. An SIT report is, in fact, a good thing that a government should produce - and none of the coverage on it is anything but routine.
To answer your question, though - I think there's a risk to every party if we built sensitive articles on breaking news headlines, present unclear facts as though they are definitive, names included or otherwise. Why are you so opposed to recreating this in, say, three to five years, when the better sourcing emerges? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 16:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Do agree with TNT though. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 17:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
WP:N states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". The GNG is always relevant. Katzrockso (talk) 06:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
WP:SNG are always preferred when determining notability, should they exist for a topic. Zalaraz (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, since per WP:N very explicitly states a topic is notable if it meets either the WP:GNG or a particular WP:SNG. Katzrockso (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
No, it says that it's presumed notable. You can overcome that presumption; for example, if the sources are weak enough that you can't build an article adhering to core PAGs. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 23:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - It is not a new thing to see SIT getting formed after the crime has attracted some media attention, but that cannot be used for establishing notability. The subject fails WP:N and has failed to attract lasting coverage. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bluerasberry and the WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS states that "For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage". There coverage is neither routine nor does it fall into the listed examples of routine coverage. WP:ROUTINE similarly provides no rationale for why the coverage here should be excluded. Katzrockso (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
    Whether the topic meets notability or not is inconsequential compared to the BLP concern affecting all parties involved. Keeping such an article only re-victimizes the victim and portrays the accused as a criminal without a real-life conviction, which violates WP:BLPCRIME. WP:NITROGLYCERIN is the way forward here. Zalaraz (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    These are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems that could be fixed by editing. WP:Deletion is not cleanup, the job of AfD is not to delete articles that have problems satisfying content guidelines, but whether the topic is notable enough to warrant a different article in any shape or form. One way to resolve your concerns about WP:BLPCRIME is just to remove all the content that violates it, not by deleting the article. WP:TNT is an essay, not a deletion rationale based in policy. Katzrockso (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    I'm going to let this be my last comment here: I actually looked into fixing this, before nominating (or at least, sketching out a way this could be fixed) However, I feel that the only way the BLP issues could be surmountable is with better quality sources, further removed from the event. We don't have those yet. Removing the content that runs afoul of BLP crime is deleting the article. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    If BLP issues are to be fixed then the article will have to go, as it concerns non public figures and crime. Zalaraz (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:EVENTCRIT. It's WP:TOOSOON for WP:LASTING to be established as the event happened this year, and the coverage in WP:ROUTINE news cycle coverage which because they qualitative in scope are WP:PRIMARY sources and not WP:SECONDARY reporting. This type of coverage fails WP:NOTNEWS. We need WP:DIVERSE sourcing and sourcing which extends beyond normal media coverage of crimes.13:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, not news.Llwyld (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus and think that this is a discussion that probably shouldn't close as "No consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Keep pushing this towards keep versus no consensus as the event at least passes WP:GNG. This is not a routine event based on 23 individuals and the SIGCOV that it garnered. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Radio News Hub

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

WP:BEFORE reveals only primary sources. Fails WP:NCORP. SpragueThomsontalk 20:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Prolific London now has an archived url. This is Paul (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The sourcing isn't there. The prolificlondon.co.uk is only one source, and we need multiple sources. I am essentially making an WP:IAR argument here. Given that hundreds of radio stations in the UK use their services its a significant media outlet. I fail to see the benefit to the public not covering this topic. That said... I don't think anyone can honestly claim a WP:GNG or WP:ORG pass. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Eurasian Humanities Studies

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

Article PRODded with reason: "Non-notable journal. Not in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator without reason given and without any changes to the article addressing the issues raised. Therefore, PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

This journal is indexed in three major SELECTIVE academic journal databases: CNKI,[1] Wanfang Data, and CQVIP.[2] It is included in National Center for Philosophy and Social Sciences Documentation as well (see [3]) although I am not sure how selective NCPSSD is.
It is also included in AMI (set to replace CSSCI, the Chinese equivalent to SSCI/AHCI), see [1]. A brief introduction to AMI (the following text translated from AMI源刊-学术参考信息网 (Shandong University):
Introduction: AMI, the Comprehensive Evaluation Index System for Chinese Humanities and Social Sciences Journals, is the first large-scale evaluation project undertaken by the China Social Sciences Evaluation Center (the predecessor of the China Social Sciences Evaluation Institute).
Since 2014, the China Social Sciences Evaluation Institute (hereinafter referred to as the Evaluation Institute) has conducted journal evaluations every four years. The 2022 release of the "AMI Comprehensive Evaluation Report on Chinese Humanities and Social Sciences Journals (2022)" (third edition) evaluated 1,924 established journals, 117 newly established journals, 148 foreign journals, and 403 academic collections across 33 disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. The evaluations were divided into five levels: top, authoritative, core, expanded, and in-repository, based on the journals' academic level, comprehensive evaluation score, and actual performance. LSNAWQ (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "欧亚人文研究(中俄文)". chn.oversea.cnki.net. Retrieved 2025-10-20.
  2. ^ "《欧亚人文研究（中俄文）》". CQVIP.
  3. ^ "国家哲学社会科学文献中心". www.ncpssd.cn. Retrieved 2025-10-20.
  • I'm sorry, but as far as I can see, none of these databases is selective as meant in WP:NJournals. What you write about the "Comprehensive Evaluation" actually is a strong indication of not being selective. --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Since you do not trust me, nor do you read Chinese, I could only hope and hereby encourage Chinese-language academics who pass by to tell the very simple and indisputable fact that AMI is selective. LSNAWQ (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete I found a journal of Eurasian studies but nothing regarding Eurasian Humanities Studies no seciondary sources and no articles. Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
    Try search 欧亚人文研究 or Eвразийские гуманитарные исследования. The journal is about 90% Chinese, 10% Russian. LSNAWQ (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: In my searches for sources, I found only this independent source:
    1. Wu, Jie 伍杰; Zhao, Hankun 赵含坤 (2000). 中文期刊大词典 [Chinese Periodical Dictionary] (in Chinese). Beijing: Peking University Press. p. 276. ISBN 978-7-301-03349-4. Retrieved 2025-10-24 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "俄语学习北京外国语大学编 1959,00, 1 — 1966.00. 5 2 6 107—189|1985,00, ^^^^^^)—^! 1 一双月刊北京商务印书馆出版原名为《中华俄语)外语学习普及型刊物.以广大自学者大中学俄语教师为主要对象,把向读者提供阅读材料和分析俄语语文现象结合起来,以普及为主,兼及提高,适当介绍苏联国情知识, 料、知识之窗、科技俄语、 综合性社科刊物.旨在"提倡社会文化,发扬学术精神,主要栏目有初学园地、读物、语法、同汇、修辞.翻译、会话材 多铎朵俄"

      From Google Translate: "Russian Learning, edited by Beijing Foreign Studies University, October 1, 1959 — October 5, 1966, May 26, 1985, ^^^^^^)—^! 1, a bimonthly publication published by the Commercial Press in Beijing. Originally titled "Chinese Russian," it is a popular foreign language learning journal. Aimed primarily at self-learners and Russian teachers at universities and middle schools, it combines the provision of reading materials with analysis of Russian language phenomena, focusing on popularization while also improving understanding. Appropriate introductions to knowledge of the Soviet Union are included, including Materials, a Window of Knowledge, and Scientific Russian. A comprehensive social science journal, it aims to "promote social culture and foster the academic spirit." Its main columns include "Beginner's Garden," "Readings," "Grammar," "Dictionary," "Rhetoric," "Translation," and "Conversational Materials.""

    If a second independent reliable source that provides significant coverage about the subject can be found, this journal will meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    If a second source cannot be found, I recommend a merge/redirect to Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, the journal's publisher, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.

    By the way, thank you LSNAWQ (talk · contribs) for creating Wanfang Data and CQVIP, which I've used many times in the past for cite Chinese-language journal articles. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I will be concise.
First, does this journal meet the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (GENERAL journal)? Yes.
For instance: 中国发行量最大的俄语教学期刊迎来创刊45周年-搜狐新闻中心
中国发行量最大的俄语教学期刊迎来创刊45周年
NEWS.SOHU.COM　　2004年10月13日15:59　　来源：新华网
　　新华网北京10月13日电（记者葛万青张言王作葵）中俄建交55周年到来之际，一本在中国发行量最大的俄语教学期刊—《俄语学习》也迎来了它的45周岁生日。
　　《俄语学习》创刊于中国普遍掀起学习俄语高潮的五十年代。这本由北京外国语大学主办的教学期刊成为中国广大俄语爱好者了解俄罗斯语言、文学、历史、文化、国情知识和时事的一个窗
口。
　　《俄语学习》主编尹城说：“我们的读者群非常广泛——不仅有学生和教师，还包括外交官、商贸人员、科技人员和广大俄语自学者。”
　　北京外国语大学俄语学院毕业生曹定说，《俄语学习》伴他走过了4年大学生活，刊物文章语言活泼、易懂，对提高俄语阅读能力很有好处。“从这本杂志中我还了解到很多俄罗斯风俗民情。”他说。
　　近半个世纪来，《俄语学习》的发展就像一支“晴雨表”，从一个侧面反映了中国俄语教学事业的“兴”与“衰”。
　　《俄语学习》在1966年“文化大革命”时曾被迫停刊，直到1985年复刊。之后近20年中，刊物几经扩版，发行量由初期的6000份增加到8000份。
　　商务印书馆外语工具书编辑室副主任、《俄语学习》的老读者潘安荣说：“没想到《俄语学习》有这么强的生命力，当年仅有寥寥数页的小册子如今已办得有模有样！”
　　中国俄语教学研究会的最新统计资料显示，在被调查的55所中国高等院校中，共有在校俄语专业本科生5467人，硕士487人，博士88人，博士后13人。他们是《俄语学习》最主要的读者群。
　　中国俄语教学研究会会长刘利民教授说：“四十多年来，《俄语学习》在推广俄语教学、培养俄语人才方面发挥了积极的作用，伴随了中国几代俄语爱好者的成长。”
　　为满足读者对俄罗斯文化日益浓厚的兴趣，《俄语学习》近期还将新增“俄罗斯历史与文化”、“俄罗斯文艺”、“俄罗斯文学”三个栏目。“我们要努力提高刊物的档次和质量，以不断满足读者的需求。”尹城说。
ChatGPT translation:
China’s Most Widely Circulated Russian Language Teaching Journal Marks Its 45th Anniversary
NEWS.SOHU.COM, October 13, 2004 — Source: Xinhua News Agency
BEIJING, October 13 (Reporters: Ge Wanqing, Zhang Yan, Wang Zuokui) — As China and Russia celebrate the 55th anniversary of their diplomatic relations, Russian Language Learning (《俄语学习》), the most widely circulated Russian language teaching journal in China, is also marking its 45th anniversary.
Russian Language Learning was founded in the 1950s, during a nationwide enthusiasm for studying Russian. Published by Beijing Foreign Studies University, the journal has become a window for countless Chinese readers to learn about Russian language, literature, history, culture, national affairs, and current events.
“Our readership is very broad,” said Yin Cheng, editor-in-chief of Russian Language Learning. “It includes not only students and teachers, but also diplomats, businesspeople, scientists, and self-learners of Russian.”
Cao Ding, a graduate of the Russian Department at Beijing Foreign Studies University, said that Russian Language Learning accompanied him through his four years of college. “The articles are lively and easy to understand, which really helped improve my reading ability,” he said. “I also learned a lot about Russian customs and social life from the magazine.”
Over the past half-century, the development of Russian Language Learning has served as a kind of “barometer,” reflecting the ups and downs of Russian language education in China.
The journal was forced to suspend publication in 1966 during the Cultural Revolution and did not resume until 1985. In the nearly two decades since its revival, it has expanded several times, with circulation increasing from 6,000 copies in its early years to about 8,000.
Pan Anrong, deputy director of the Foreign Language Reference Books Editorial Office at The Commercial Press and a longtime reader of Russian Language Learning, remarked: “I never expected the magazine to have such vitality. It started as just a few pages, but now it’s a well-produced publication!”
According to the latest statistics from the Chinese Association for Russian Language Teaching, among 55 surveyed Chinese universities, there are currently 5,467 undergraduate students majoring in Russian, 487 master’s students, 88 doctoral students, and 13 postdoctoral researchers. They make up the journal’s primary readership.
Professor Liu Limin, president of the Chinese Association for Russian Language Teaching, said: “Over more than forty years, Russian Language Learning has played a positive role in promoting Russian language education and training talent, accompanying several generations of Chinese learners.”
To meet readers’ growing interest in Russian culture, Russian Language Learning plans to add three new columns: “Russian History and Culture,” “Russian Arts,” and “Russian Literature.” “We are striving to enhance the quality and standard of the publication to better meet our readers’ needs,” Yin Cheng said.
Second, does the journal meet WP:NJournals (ACADEMIC journal)? Yes.
I have created an article for AMI Comprehensive Evaluation Report. There is a research article about AMI: A comprehensive analysis of the journal evaluation system in China | Quantitative Science Studies | MIT Press. AMI is now considered one of three major citation indices, alongside CSSCI and A Guide to the Core Journals of China. LSNAWQ (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for finding Ge, Yan & Wang 2004, which is the crucial second source that allows Eurasian Humanities Studies to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I've switched to supporting retention below. LSNAWQ (talk · contribs), thank you again for your great work in creating articles on Chinese journals and databases as this is an area that deeply underrepresented on Wikipedia! As long as there are two independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about a subject, it will meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Acumen (magazine)

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

I am struggling to find references of quality for this literary journal. I cannot see how it passes WP:GNG 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep. I added WP:SIGCOV in multiple book sources and journals to the article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all of the original sources that aren't dead links, plus the newly added ones are very brief passing mentions, often in directories. Not sure this comes under WP:NJOURNAL as it's not an academic, peer reviewed journal but it doesn't meet WP:GNG. It doesn't seem to pay contributors so seems to be a publication of amateur poetry which may explain why WP:BEFORE came up with so little. Orange sticker (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think that is an accurate representation of the materials. I noticed you removed an assessment of the publication under a POV claim even though it came from a book published by McGraw Hill, a respected academic press. I attributed the quote to its author (which seemed unnecessary since it was cited), but that should assuage POV concerns. There are clear indications this is notable literary journal because of the content of what is said in the sources. Not everything is about length of words, but about what is said. 4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
See WP:PUFFERY, "leading" is in the list of words to watch. Orange sticker (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Nonsense. This was in a list of "leading poetry journals" compiled in a book by a respected author from an academic publisher who is a subject matter expert. Claims of importance matter when they come from reliable SECONDARY sources.4meter4 (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. The sources found by 4meter4.
    2. "Acumen article". The Poetry Review. Vol. 83. 1993. Retrieved 2025-10-28 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "Acumen It would be tempting though not quite fair to say that Acumen now occupies the territory once held by the unreconstructed Outposts: there's the same emphasis on single poems, often by unfamiliar authors ...  ... could stand as characteristic Acumen titles. There's a danger of complacency in this, but Patricia Oxley guards against it by attracting excellent established poets (Brownjohn, Ewart, Porter, the indefatigable Heath-Stubbs) and by finding some unusually confident newer voices. Where some editors' open doors let in the dust from the streets, hers admits the bracing fresh air of writers who convincingly reinvent the familiar: David Sutton, in 'Heatwave' ('The world's less real on summer afternoons. / We walk in dazzle, wan as daylit ghosts'); Adam Johnson, whose autumnal 'End of Season' ('lt pulls again, a green wave at my heels, / Furling the summer cinder... ') moves from simple regret to the terror of 'Profound incontrovertible disease'. Acumen shares with Outposts the problem of critical sharpness in its prose: some of its reviews, particularly of those perennial poets well-known ..."

    3. Jerome, Helen M. (May 2000). "The U.K. Literary Journal Market". Poets and Writers Magazine. Vol. 28, no. 3. p. 58. ProQuest 1311717092.

      The article notes: "Acumen is a beautifully produced, paper-back-format literary magazine founded in 1985. Editor Patricia Oxley states that her aim is "to publish good poetry in a critical context." The journal thus publishes articles on poetry, poetic reminiscences, reviews as well as poetry. Each issue of Acumen publishes up to 50 new poems and includes a separate, pull-out poster featuring the work of one writer. Acumen will publish experimental poetry if it's not too obscure, as well as narrative."

    4. "Literary Ladies". Torquay Herald Express. 1986-11-27. Archived from the original on 2025-10-28. Retrieved 2025-10-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "A literary magazine edited and published by a South Devon woman arrived on my desk recently. Issue No 4, out last month, was the first l had heard of Acumen, the pages of which are packed with poems, interviews and reviews. The editor, Patricia Oxley, of Brixham, says her aim was to publish good poetry from known and unknown writers, male or female. Yet she found an increasing number of manuscripts coming in were from women. Not only this, many of her subscribers were women. ... Because of this, Patricia is now welcoming feedback and inquiries from writers' circles, womens' groups and so on — with copies of Acumen at £1.50, a reduction of 25p. The magazine was launched last year."

    5. "Agenda article". Agenda. Poets' and Painters' Press. 1992. Retrieved 2025-10-28 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "In its constant search for the good poem Acumen has published work by Sebastian Barker, Julie Whitby, Julian May, Penelope Shuttle, John Heath-Stubbs, Hilary Davies, Heather Buck, Peter Dale, Edward Lowbury, Adam Johnson and a galaxy of other poets. A comprehensive and well-written reviews section, initiated by William Oxley and now edited by Glyn Pursglove, plus short stories, critical articles and a new feature 'Overheard on Parnassus' make up this magazine of over 100pp. Only £ 3.00 per issue or £5.50 subscription (2 issues a year: April and October) Patricia Oxley, Acumen Publications"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Acumen to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the sources listed above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Frankie Doom

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

Fails WP:NENTERTAINER, has so far been a participant in a single reality TV franchise, no WP:SIGCOV outside of that. WP:PSEUDO also applies. In the same way that we do not have articles for every participant on other reality shows (Big Brother for example), appearing on this show does not automatically assume notability. --woodensuperman 12:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --woodensuperman 12:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:Entertainer. There's a longstanding standard that individuals who have competed on two TV series (even within the same franchise) meet notability criteria. There's no reason to move the goalposts here. Article should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    This is a spin-off season of the same franchise, which clearly does not meet the criteria in WP:NENTERTAINER for "multiple notable television shows". --woodensuperman 13:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    Agree to disagree. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:Entertainer, for the same reasons Another Believer stated. Cornmazes (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Cynthia Doll

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

Fails WP:NENTERTAINER, has so far been a participant in a single reality TV franchise, no WP:SIGCOV outside of that. WP:PSEUDO also applies. In the same way that we do not have articles for every participant on other reality shows (Big Brother for example), appearing on this show does not automatically assume notability. --woodensuperman 12:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --woodensuperman 12:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:Entertainer. There's a longstanding standard that individuals who have competed on two TV series (even within the same franchise) meet notability criteria. There's no reason to move the goalposts here. Article should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    This is a spin-off season of the same franchise, which clearly does not meet the criteria in WP:NENTERTAINER for "multiple notable television shows". --woodensuperman 13:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    Agree to disagree. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:Entertainer, for the same reasons Another Believer stated. Cornmazes (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as per WP:Entertainer, for the same reasons Another Believer stated.Naraht (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Merely being on a reality show(s) does not indicate an automatic pass of WP:NENTERTAINER. The subject has to demonstrate that their contribution to the show was significant per that language in the SNG guideline. The sourcing here doesn't demonstrate that what Cynthia Doll did on these reality shows was in fact "significant". A redirect to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula is a plausible WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, LGBTQ+ studies, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - one reliable source and another possibly unreliable citation are not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you find and add two more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: A lack of WP:SIGCOV to establish notability here. I also don't see how WP:ENTERTAINER is met, which states multiple [...] notable television shows are required. They've only appeared on one television show, albeit multiple times (across two seasons). Nil🥝 04:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Abhora

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

Fails WP:NENTERTAINER, has so far been a participant in a single reality TV franchise, no WP:SIGCOV outside of that. WP:PSEUDO also applies. In the same way that we do not have articles for every participant on other reality shows (Big Brother for example), appearing on this show does not automatically assume notability. --woodensuperman 12:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --woodensuperman 12:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:Entertainer. There's a longstanding standard that individuals who have competed on two TV series (even within the same franchise) meet notability criteria. There's no reason to move the goalposts here. Article should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    This is a spin-off season of the same franchise, which clearly does not meet the criteria in WP:NENTERTAINER for "multiple notable television shows". --woodensuperman 13:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    Agree to disagree. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:Entertainer, for the same reasons Another Believer stated. Cornmazes (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as per WP:Entertainer, for the same reasons Another Believer stated.Naraht (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Merely being on a reality show(s) does not indicate an automatic pass of WP:NENTERTAINER. The subject has to demonstrate that their contribution to the show was significant per that language in the SNG guideline. The sourcing here doesn't demonstrate that what Abhora did on these reality shows was in fact "significant". Further one of the sources used is unreliable because it is a live podcast which is a WP:PRIMARY source.4meter4 (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    But did you search for sources not used in the article? Sources aren't difficult to find. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Nothing looks good in that list. Seeing a bunch of trivial WP:FANCRUFT/WP:TABLOID type reporting. Trivial current event coverage of this type is not significant, and it is WP:PRIMARY because it's qualitative eyewitness/interview reporting. We need sources with analysis and context across time for the sources to become WP:SECONDARY in order to demonstrate significance.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
We're not going to agree here, which is fine, but are you open to changing your vote from delete to redirect? There's no need to delete the page and its history altogether because at minimum the redirect serves a purpose to readers. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
@Another Believer: Sure a redirect to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula as an WP:ATD is fine. On a side note, if Abhora's work were significant on this show(s) you would expect articles with cross-episode and cross-season analysis (how they grew as an artist; themes in their work etc.) So much gets written on drag these days that type of coverage should exist if a particular contestant is significant. That's the type of coverage that would indicate an WP:NENTERTAINER pass. Churnalism, which is what we have here, isn't evidence of notability. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm sure there's more to add, I'll keep fleshing out the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Let me know if you want me to take a second look. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, but instead, I would ask you to please consider changing your other delete votes for similar bios to redirect for the same reason and for consistency. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete – per @4meter4. There is no significant coverage from any reliable source. The subject does not satisfy either criteria of WP:NENTERTAINER. Jcgaylor (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

California University of Science and Medicine

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

The article does not have reliable sources that can help confirm notability. There is no media coverage on Google search. It does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. Nothing beyond their own press releases. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep Unless there is something wrong with the San Bernardino Sun as a newspaper that I am unaware of, there is reliable sourcing available that is already in the WP article + more. Whole articles are devoted to the school. Would have said speedy keep if there weren't a second vote already. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
    I have to disagree with you. San Bernardino Sun piece based on own press release of the institution about the number of students by no means can be used to satisfy the WP:SIGCOV. Institution's own website is also not a source. I do not see any other sources on Google search. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
    There are not many MD schools in the US. Being even provisionally accredited by the LCME is difficult and very expensive. All of the schools with this status are found in press sometimes as in the article but also keep in mind more technical publishers E.g. Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03414-1 2600:4041:2E8:AE00:5135:87E5:AB6B:FA6F (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
    That is not true, I am afraid. There are over 160 accredited MD-granting medical schools in the United States, and even more with other programs. Simply existing does not equal notability. https://www.2minutemedicine.com/counting-u-s-medical-schools-md-and-do-programs-in-2025/
    This particular institution, again, has no reliable independent coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. It rather appears to be a shell entity of one of the biggest Medicaid fraud cases in the state, which I find quite unexpected - Prem Reddy. I take the name of this institution and Google it, and it shows nothing. While there are no issues with looking up media coverage of actually notable institutions. Feel free to add sources, and editors would evaluate. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
    Comment: It is not even included in any of the established and reputable educational rankings in the US, which virtually includes almost all existing medical schools in the country. If it is so notable, and has such a status, why nobody wants to acknowledge it? https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-medical-schools/california-university-of-science-and-medicine-04186 WestwoodHights573 (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. I removed some of the unsourced PR stuff, and added a number of newspaper articles. It has some coverage from outside the area. I think there is enough here to pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
    Hi @4meter4! I did not actually heck the sources you added. None of the sources seem to exist. Why is that so and where did you find them?
    Source 1 that you added, describing as an article is virtually a press release. De La Cruz, Rene Ray. "Helping Students Pursue Their Dreams: Dr. Prem Reddy Family Foundation Awards 84 Students With Scholarships". Daily Press. pp. B1, B2.
    Same goes for your sources 3. It is a press release made by the owners of the place. Caruso, Kendra (January 19, 2025). "What is in Store for CMMC? Though Prime Healthcare Foundation is Non-Profit, It Is Operated By For-Profit Prime Healthcare". Sun Journal. pp. A1, A6.
    And where is this source? "Saving Hospitals Starts With Getting the Facts Straight". The Los Angeles Times. October 12, 2014. p. A11. It is a brief passing mention that has nothing to do with the "notability" of a real secondary educational institution. It is nit that hard to prove notability and find sources to a notable educational institution that offer people "graduate degrees".
    Bottom line, so far, there is not even 1 independent article that would provide more that 100 words about this place to help establish notability beyond their own press releases , and re-published press releases. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
By-lined journalist written newspaper articles are not press releases. You obviously did not read the sources either. They are viewable in newspapers.com.4meter4 (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I do not see you proving that journalist written by-liner. Can you share those? Source 1 is 99% press release, and it published in an absolutely different website. I am not sure if you are deliberately attempting to mislead people. https://www.vvdailypress.com/story/news/education/2025/06/24/dr-prem-reddy-family-foundation-hosts-scholarship-award-ceremony/84279901007
If you cannot provide links to the real sources, unfortunately, I will have to remove those that you added, because they do not seem to even exist. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I provided you with the link to the website with those exact sources that are 99% press release, 50% interview of the subject, which is by no means at all - an independent reliable source providing in-debt coverage. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
As an update: I had to remove those press-release sources. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
@WestwoodHights573:I reverted it because the sources were clearly WP:RS for these reasons: 1) All but one source has a by-line by a staff journalist which means they are not press releases 2) None of the sources were verifying anything controversial 3) The sources are from reliable newspapers with editorial boards. 4) The materials have original reporting not found anywhere else. 5) The articles were never published anywhere else as one would expect if these were in fact press releases. 6) Journalist written articles with partial interview text are allowable, and are not discredited as usable WP:RS as you seem to incorrectly imply here. If you disagree take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I have every confidence that it will be readily obvious to everyone there that the sources in question are not press release but are independent reliable RS (particularly since the content cited isn't to the interview portions of the materials). Your source analysis skills are woefully off. Fair warning if you remove by-lined journalist written sources published by respectable newspapers again from the article I will pursue next steps which may involve reporting you for Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. It's one thing to disagree about source materials, it's another matter to gut an article at AFD of all its WP:SECONDARY references in a way that could unduly manipulate/ skew an AFD discussion by removing materials from community view. Lastly the first source is available for viewing through the Wikipedia Library in newspaper.com. It was published on July 3, 2022 so the url you provided above for an article published in 2025 is from a completely different article by the same journalist. Providing urls is not mandatory as offline materials or materials accessible only through subscription database access are perfectly legit. (see Wikipedia:Offline sources)4meter4 (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

DJ Rony

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. I could find no significant coverage in Arabic or English RS, just a few identical press releases for his planned recording with Mohamed Ramadan, and routine coverage of the concert he did in Dubai. The rest is social media. Arabic media tend to use "DJ Rony", but editors searching for coverage that I missed should please note that there's an unrelated Lebanese DJ called "DJ Rony Seikaly". A previous attempt by another editor was moved to Draft:DJ Rony, the day before this version was created, at Dj Ron'y for some reason. Wikishovel (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Philippine Science High School Bicol Region Campus

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is no independent and reliable sources this article can rely on. Being a public school is backed by a charter is not a get-out-of-jail card against deletion. Yes the campus exist but I cannot find any third-party sources discussing the history of the school

These are among the campuses of the PSHS with the most scarce availability of sources. A handful of these could be a redirect to the main system article which does meet WP:GNG. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The Catalyst (American newspaper)

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

Seems to fail WP:NORG. The article's cited sources are largely depreciated, primary, or otherwise not WP:RS. A search for articles produces trivial coverage ([[5]], [[6]], [[7]]), and a borderline case ([[8]]). Jcgaylor (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Gusa Regional Science High School

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is no independent and reliable sources this article can rely on. Being a public school is backed by a charter is not a get-out-of-jail card against deletion. Only sources present are the charter laws, NAT ranking, and link to the curriculum Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Caraga Regional Science High School

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

Wholly unsourced. Fails WP:GNG. There is no independent and reliable sources this article can rely on. Being a public school is backed by a charter is not a get-out-of-jail card against deletion. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Stuart Lightbody

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

fails notability guidelines (GNG, SIGCOV and NBAD). zglph•talk• 06:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Quentin Vincent

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

having runner up at a tournament that does not pass WP:NBAD. GNG is also not met. zglph•talk• 05:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Patrick Lundqvist

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

fails relevant notability guidelines. Doesn't pass NBAD either. The reference is just about the club information which is not considered reliable. zglph•talk• 05:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Wood Fountain at IUPUI

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

This is a very brief article about a non-notable artwork at Indiana University. There are no in-line citations, and the references are either from the university or the company that created the artwork. I could not find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The artwork is sufficiently covered by Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis Public Art Collection. Rainsage (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Justin Teeuwen

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

fails notability guidelines (GNG, NBAD and SIGCOV). zglph•talk• 05:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Jacek Kołumbajew

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

fails notability guidelines (GNG, SIGCOV and NBAD). zglph•talk• 05:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Equational prover

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

I found one independent source (https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/1210math.html), but no others. EQP is already mentioned on Robbins algebra and William McCune and the NYT source can be added to those pages. Truthnope (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Elín Þóra Elíasdóttir

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

fails notability guidelines (NBAD, GNG and SIGCOV). A newspaper cutting has her mention , but no significant details can be found. zglph•talk• 04:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Georges Leroux

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. A redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics, where his name was mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Not sure how deep of a dive was done, but there seems to be quite a few mentions in French newspaper archives for coverage. Admittedly, I didn't do a very deep dive either, but was able to find this article which details the French gymnastics national championship which the subject won back-to-back with the title being "L'Alsacien Georges Leroux Est Champion de France de Gymnastique" or "Alsatian Georges Leroux is French Gymnastics Champion". Additional mentions found here, here, here, here, here, and here. That's only via retronews.fr, it looks like there's even more coverage on gallica.bnf.fr and likely other repositories. GauchoDude (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics unless sources are added through editing. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC for being built entirely from a single database source. Note, that to keep the article at least one source must be present in the article with WP:SIGCOV that is not a database per SPORTSBASIC. It is not enough to merely identify sources under that guideline because there is a source presence requirement. Editing must happen or we should redirect/delete this.4meter4 (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see a source review of sources presented by User:GauchoDude.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Ashkelon rocket attacks

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

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROSELINE. Redirect to Sheikh Omar Hadid Brigade. Longhornsg (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Merge to Ashkelon per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I also just added sources from The Guardian, Reuters, NBC News, Al Jazeera, and others further demonstrating notability. This was a multi-month bombing campaign between Israel and military insurgents in the Gaza strip that predates the current conflict. The article might need some improvements through editing but it meets the guidelines for inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    This is all news reporting of what happened. WP:NOTNEWS. Longhornsg (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Lean keep but redirect wouldnt be bad. ←Metallurgist (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. @Metallurgist: and @Gjb0zWxOb: How does this pass WP:EVENTCRIT or WP:GNG (which requires SECONDARY sources)? Contemporaneous reporting at the time of the event in the news is WP:PRIMARY. To become WP:SECONDARY coverage, sources must have distance from the event, and that doesn't seem to exist in the sources. (see https://libguides.ufv.ca/HistoricalNews which explains when news becomes secondary). I also question whether two separate rocket attacks are even necessarily the same event the way we have put them together here. This is why I thought a merge to Ashkelon could work. Best.4meter4 (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    Im not really that fussed about it. I would like to see a lot of this PIACRUFT on both sides reduced. Its the most overly documented conflict in world history. ←Metallurgist (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    Not to mention having so many standalone articles treating incidents as isolated means we inevitably cover them incompletely and without the right context (on all sides). Longhornsg (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Mohammad Ali Safa

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

The subject of this article does not seem to be notable whatsoever and the only sources used are from a since deprecated Iranian source. When I first reviewed this page for B-class it was flagged as only failing B4 grammar, however it was clear it was full of what was essentially Iranian government propaganda figures and claims backed up by these deprecated sources, as can be seen on the last version of the article before I first edited it. I propose this article for deletion for these reasons as I can't see how the subject is notable; the original Iranian editor clearly believed Safa deserved an article because he was a "Martyr" who died for Iran, as was his honorific prefix in the infobox before removal, but the lack of any reliable sources showing his notability say otherwise. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Dissolution of Turner Broadcasting System

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

This article is largely a WP:CONTENTFORK of an isolated incident of a company with lots of history going defunct after a buyout. All of this information of the dissolution of Turner Broadcasting System is adequately covered at that company's page, and this fork article attempts to pinpoint select parts of that company's history and the fate of its assets together to justify its existence. Such "dissolution" articles are typically only warranted for regime changes, ie, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and not business decisions, especially when they lack much sourcing and any critical commentary or analysis of any potential impact this decision may have had. Not everything needs its own article, and I would think many readers would expect to read more about this company's fate in the article about the company itself, not a spin-off one that is probably not as easily found or sought after. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 03:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Merge Agreed. Jcgaylor (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

2024 Derdghaya Melkite Church airstrike

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Following WP:PAGEDECIDE, every airstrike in a broader war doesn't need its own page. This material is covered on Wikipedia on the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, to where this page should redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Christianity, Israel, and Lebanon. Longhornsg (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Please stick to policy, which this Afd is based on. WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Longhornsg (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    You are right about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as for WP:ITSIMPORTANT if you want me to be more specific, as partly stated before:
    1. The article is about the destruction of a cultural and religious building which involved multiple civilian deaths.
    2. It received international coverage from various news outlets with articles dedicated solely to covering the event.
    3. It received statements from non-domestic leaders, Pope Francis and Cardinal Pizzaballa.
    4. It recieved post event coverage.

    I fail to see how the article is insignificant enough to be relegated to a redirect. Red Phoenician (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. In addition to a flurry of international press at the time of the event, there was much coverage of the church during the Christmas and Easter seasons following. There's also coverage in this journal article. Some other sources not used included Giannopoulos, Bill (October 12, 2024). "Israeli Airstrike Targets Melkite Greek Catholic Church". Greek City Times. and Frayer, Lauren (December 23, 2024). "What the Israel-Hezbollah war did to Lebanon's cultural heritage sites". NPR. This article refers to the church as heritage site. This wasn't just any building, but a historic 19th century church. I would support a move to an article on the church itself if someone cares to locate sources and go that direction. The bombing(s) could be covered in a larger article on the church itself. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable and relevant, also the reasons outlined by Red Phoenician and 4meter4. JJNito197 (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Lean delete. We dont even have an article for this church. We need a WP:ISRAELDIDATHING essay comparable to WP:TRUMPCRUFT. ←Metallurgist (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    Not to mention Derdghaya barely has anything on it, even in Arabic. ←Metallurgist (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    This just falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Red Phoenician (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    No, it demonstrates that the place isnt notable to begin, so an attack there isnt particularly notable. This is another element of PIACRUFT. ←Metallurgist (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    I suppose I should add that I am not opposed to merging to Derdghaya. May actually switch to redirect on that basis. ←Metallurgist (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including international sources and secondary sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep because it is a notable event that deserved its on page. Qhairun (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Olandria Carthen

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

This article was recently deleted at AfD on October 6, but was quickly recreated. As I wrote then, she was a contestant on one season of one reality television show, where she was runner-up. Besides that, she's had a handful of fairly small-scale modeling appearances. Does not appear to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, and the fairly insubstantial coverage makes me skeptical she passes the WP:GNG. The sourcing in this new draft is arguably weaker than the deleted one. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Olandria has since won the People's Choice Award from EBONY Power 100, she's been listed as a luminary by Cosmopolitan, and she has been recognized by Vogue and Vanity Fair. Additionally, a runway debut for a luxury fashion brand is simply not a "small-scale" appearance. Moreover, the sourcing claim is simply false. The sourcing has greatly improved, including a plethora of coverage from established magazines and news organizations, such as CNN, New York Times, Variety, and USA TODAY. All this certainly makes Carthen meet the entertainer and notability guidelines. There are articles on Wikipedia for people with less recognition and less coverage. Daring Dolphin (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
All of this is the case from the previously deleted article as well, with the exception that Carthen had only been nominated for the EBONY award at that time. Being included in a magazine's top 100 list (or I guess named as a "special honoree" but not included in the list?) does not tip the scales to notability. Regarding "there are articles on Wikipedia for people with less recognition and less coverage": yes, but we are discussing this article at the moment. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
There is no reason for her not to have a Wikipedia page. I literally just went on Wikipedia to try to figure out if she is 27 and she went to college for four years (18-21/22) and in college she was recruited to be a elevator sales person which she said in yesterdays podcast she did for 3 years (22-25)what did she do in the other 2 or 3 years… yes, she was found on reality TV. But she has tapped into something so much bigger and that should be acknowledged. 2600:4040:5F05:9600:1081:ECA6:6B0:56DB (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep: This notion that nothing has changed since the previously deleted article is false. The previously deleted article (from September) did not adequately showcase her career since her appearance on the reality show, and the previous article had rather weak sources. There have been notable changes since then, which must be acknowledged as to why this article should not be deleted:
- She made her runway debut in Sergio Hudson - a luxury fashion brand.
- She won the EBONY Power 100 People's Choice Award, an award in which her fellow nominees included well-known actors, a politician, a musician, and an athlete, solidifying Carthen's notability as she won the award over them. And the magazine recognized her as such.
- The new sources in this article, which were not in the previously deleted article, validate Carthen's notability and solidify her entertainer status. If being recognized by CNN, The New York Times, Vogue, Vanity Fair, and Cosmopolitan don't speak to her notability, I simply don't know what does.
In summary, a lot has changed since the previous deletion (both in Carthen's life and in this article). These changes nullify any nomination for a deletion. Daring Dolphin (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we see a source analysis table for this article as we have very different opinions here on the state of the article sources and whether or not they are sufficient for establishing notability, as Wikipedia judges notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
The case for retaining Olandria Carthen’s Wikipedia page is clear and compelling. Carthen’s notability is thoroughly substantiated by her high-profile modeling career, major brand partnerships, and consistent media coverage. She has secured a People’s Choice Award from EBONY Magazine, walked the runway at New York Fashion Week, and participated in acclaimed campaigns with brands such as UGG, Microsoft, and NYX Cosmetics—each covered by reputable publications.
This level of achievement and recognition is not only significant in its own right, but it also meets the standards commonly used to justify the inclusion of other public figures. For example, Amaya Espinal possesses a comparable, if not less extensive, record of professional credits, yet her Wikipedia page remains unchallenged. The discrepancy in the scrutiny applied to Carthen’s page, as opposed to Espinal’s, raises questions of equitability and consistency within the notability guidelines.
If the aim is to uphold Wikipedia’s standards, then Olandria Carthen’s portfolio—marked by industry accolades, media attention, and cultural influence—should be more than sufficient for her continued inclusion. Jessy4sho86 (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • These 10 sources represent the article’s overall coverage of the subject.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Major independent news outlet, not affiliated with Carthen Yes Professional editorial oversight Yes Focused coverage on Carthen and partner, not just a brief mention ✔ Yes
Yes Independent publication, unaffiliated with subject Yes High editorial standards Yes In-depth interview about Carthen ✔ Yes
Yes Independent entertainment news outlet Yes Recognized trade publication Yes Focused on Carthen’s professional activities ✔ Yes
Yes Independent magazine Yes Lifestyle/entertainment focus, editorial oversight Yes Feature article focused on Carthen discussing beauty standards ✔ Yes
Yes Independent publication, unaffiliated Yes Editorial oversight, generally reliable Yes Full feature highlighting Carthen in VMAs/Black Beauty context ✔ Yes
Yes National news outlet, independent Yes Professionally edited ~ Focused on fashion event, Carthen featured but not full article on her ~ Partial
Yes Entertainment industry publication, independent Yes Established trade publication ~ Highlighted as honoree for People's Choice Award ~ Partial
Yes Independent newspaper Yes Reliable local journalism Yes Full feature introducing Carthen as contestant ✔ Yes
Yes Independent lifestyle publication Yes Professional editing, generally reliable ~ Listicle; mentions Carthen among several Gen Z influencers ~ Partial
Yes Independent tech platform ~ Tech news outlet with editorial oversight Yes In-depth story on her personal efforts to fund her education; dedicated to her journey ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Based on multiple independent, reliable sources, including CNN, NYT, Deadline, etc, Carthen receives significant coverage that is clearly focused on her television, professional, and cultural contributions. She has been recognized and awarded for those contributions, as an influencer, TV personality, and model, by Vogue, Cosmopolitan, and EBONY Magazine. A review of both in-depth and partial sources demonstrates that she meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline for entertainment figures (WP:N).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daring Dolphin (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    Not truthful that Olandria’s career surrounds one event. In the Wikipedia article, as it currently stands, the first paragraph in her “Career” section is focused on her stint on the reality show. The following three paragraphs focus on her career moves after her TV appearance, including her modeling career, and sources highlight that as well. Carthen has been specifically acknowledged and praised for not being a one-hit wonder and building a career as a model and influencer outside of the show. Therefore, I don’t believe it’s fair or accurate at all to state that the subject is tied to solely one event. Daring Dolphin (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Can you please point to the sources that back up your claim. I see zero WP:SIGCOV of a career outside of Love Island. Please list them below so we can all view and evaluate.4meter4 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
(Articles linked in paragraph)
Carthen has partnered with mutiple companies and spoken on multiple campuses, solidifying her career as an influencer. She made her runway debut for a luxury fashion brand during New York Fashion Week in September. She has modeled in brand campaigns as well. She's been awarded by EBONY for "her impact that extends far beyond reality TV" and awarded by Cosmopolitan for "entertain[ing] the masses". She's been acknowledged and covered in-depth for demonstrating how to build influence that lasts. Carthen started on reality TV, yes, but she has gone on to build a notable career afterwards. And time and time again in this deletion discussion, I and others have provided multiple sources that highlight that career and contribute to the general notability guidelines.
And I also think it's pertinent to highlight a point we keep circling back to: During the 1st nomination of deletion of this article, deletion was justified (then) because it was very early out from her TV stint and there was limited notable coverage. That has since changed, which is why the second submission of this article was approved for creation. Notability has been established, significant coverage has been granted, and sources have been provided, improved, and assessed (now at length). Therefore, this current article simply does not warrant a deletion and should be kept. Daring Dolphin (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think we need more consensus about if something truly has changed in the 2 weeks between the close of the last AfD and the start of this one as has been claimed here. Pinging the extended confirmed participants from the last discussion who have not participated here yet: @GothicGolem29, ChildrenWillListen, Scope creep, Ravenswing, MarioProtIV, Babysharkboss2, Fortuna imperatrix mundi, EF5, Kokaynegeesus, and GrinningIodize:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per the sources in the source table provided by Daring Dolphin Olandria Carthern has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources and so meets WP:BASIC (thanks for the ping Barkeep49).GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete/redirect What "significant media coverage" has this person received outside from their own community? A People's Choice Award does not signify "significant media coverage." And most sources listed are tabloid magazines that specialize in celebrity news and entertainment (i.e., Cosmopolitan, EBONY). I would take this discussion more seriously if it wasn't proven already that the subjects fans have orchestrated public campaigns on other sites (most notably X) to keep this article up. Doesn't help that many Wikipedia users were harassed and targeted by these same fans for voting to not keep the article. Also, the last time this article was created, it was made up of entirely AI. Administrators also detected multiple sockpuppet accounts voting multiple times to keep the page up. If this behavior persists they will be pinged again. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
    - As listed in source assessment table, CNN, The New York Times, Deadline, and USA Today are not tabloids.
    - There has been limited involvement of the "Subject's fans" in this deletion discussion, compared to previous deletion discussion. Current article was approved by Wikipedia user, and multiple Wikipedia users have stated the article should be kept in this discussion, adding to consesus.
    - Can confirm that this current, fleshed out article, as it stands, was not written with AI. Daring Dolphin (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Czeslaw Krysa

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

I can find no evidence that this person meets WP:BASIC. The best source I can find is from Michigan State University. Others are less helpful in a notability context. This obituary comes from a small publication where Krysa had a weekly column, so I don't think it's independent. There's also a local news Q&A, which is effectively a primary source. There are other scattered mentions of Krysa out there, but none focus on the man himself (nor can I find sources that support much of what's in the article right now). Ed [talk] [OMT] 00:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Also to note: be aware that the article as it exists now is likely AI-generated. The creator has used AI in many of their other edits, such as Draft:Michigan Alkali Company and White House State Ballroom. A valid alternative here could be WP:DRAFTREASON. Ed [talk] [OMT] 00:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and New York. Ed [talk] [OMT] 00:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: No evidence of passing WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - his last church, St. Casimir Roman Catholic Church, is probably notable, but not him. Parish priests are rarely considered notable without significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes WP:NCREATIVE and WP:GNG. He is notable as an artist. He has non-trivial coverage for his work as a pisanki artist in Kamuda, Alan (March 28, 1991). "Spectacular Shells: Priest Brings Craft to Orchard Lake". Detroit Free Press. p. 10F. and "Fr. Czeslaw Krysa". Lansing State Journal. August 2, 2003. p. 65. which covers his work as a featured artist at an Art Festival at the University of Muchigan. There's also coverage of his teaching of the Polish art of palm weaving in Kamuda, Alan (March 23, 1994). "Weaving of Palm Fronds Stems from Old Tradition". Detroit Free Press. p. 60A. There is also a lengthy article covering his work as a maker of krupnik in Galarneau, Andrew Z. (February 23, 2020). "King of Krupnik: Kaistertown Priest Has Become a Master at Making the Buckwheat Honey-Based Liqueur of Eastern Poland". The Buffalo News. pp. F7, F8. Altogether, he demonstrates notability as a practitioner of various Polish folk arts.4meter4 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    • @4meter4: I appreciate the diving into sources I don't seem to have access to! With the site you're using, is it possible to see snippets to evaluate SIGCOV? Also, it would be great to get these added to the article, perhaps after it's been TNT'd to remove unverifiable AI-written content. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
These are viewable in newspapers.com which is available through the Wikipedia Library. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Um. I provided three sources with WP:SIGCOV. The sources are already sufficient to pass WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable newspaper sources identified by 4meter4 that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Atsuo Asami

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

Non-notable amateur astronomer, sourced only to a database. Tagged for expansion from French but the French article is sourced only from a line in a local meeting announcement and a line in a table. Being a minor planet discoverer is not itself a criterion for notability; we need depth of sourcing or significant scholarly impact. Passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete I've looked, and can't find sources to support notability (but I concede that this might be a product of the fact that the Japanese internet doesn't like retaining newspaper articles). It looks like Urhixidur (essentially the sole author) has copied this to their userspace, so no need to keep the mainspace version. Oppose a redirect, as I default oppose any redirects from living people's names without a very good reason. (What if they leave the organization? What if they leave in a very acrimonious way? Especially in this case, as it would stop the reader from finding the many articles in which Asami is mentioned & thus be actively harmful... ) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Ndi Kato

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

Fails notability guideline for politicians and the routine sources talking about her time as the spokesperson for the Labour party, running for the House of assembly or dumping of one party to another could not pass the general notability guideline Ibjaja055 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Kangaroo Jack: G'Day U.S.A.!

[edit]
Kangaroo Jack: G'Day U.S.A.! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable direct to video movie. could not find any sources HomerSimpson&PeterGriffinFan2007 (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete I found one additional source with a small mention [9]. But I think this film is sufficiently covered by Kangaroo Jack. Rainsage (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Milhouse Van Houten

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

non-notable simpsons character. can be redirected to the list. HomerSimpson&PeterGriffinFan2007 (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep - according to a Google search episodes, Milhouse Van Houten has been in 300 episodes. That seems notable to me. Non-notable characters don't get written into every episode. — Maile (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Patriots and Tyrants

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

Fails GNG, the only bits of coverage I found was this, an interview with TV Guide and not independent, and this, an IGN review which I have no problems with. Possible ATD is List of Jericho episodes Olliefant (she/her) 00:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. There is an entire chapter devoted to this episode in Bussolini, Jeffrey. "Jericho, Patriots and Tyrants". In Bianculli, David; Howard, Douglas L. (eds.). Television Finales: From Howdy Doody to Girls. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 9780815654476. Other books with coverage include the following:

Bennett, Eve (2019). "Patriarchal Conspiracies and Female Victims". Gender in Post-9/11 American Apocalyptic TV: Representations of Masculinity and Femininity at the End of the World. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781501331091.
Pinedo, Isabel (2010). "Things in This Country Are Gonna Change Pretty Fast: Dissent, Mobilization, and the Politics of Jericho". In Foy, Joseph J.; Dale, Timothy M. (eds.). Homer Simpson Marches on Washington: Dissent Through American Popular Culture. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 9780813139708.
Santaularia, Isabel (2014). ""There's Some Things Apocalypse Can't Change" Gender in Jericho". In Russell, Elizabeth; Gallardo,, Pere (eds.). Yesterday's Tomorrows: On Utopia and Dystopia. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 9781443858779.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Could you provide some quotes or a link to better assess the coverage? Olliefant (she/her) 03:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Why? The sources clearly demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. An episode with an entire book chapter devoted to it, and several other non-trivial coverage in books passes our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Kyle Davis (soccer)

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources. Let'srun (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Cameron Martin (soccer)

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Schutte Hammermill

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

Non notable company. No sigcov. Equine-man (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LinguistAtLarge/Today%27s_AfD&oldid=275205702"