Wikipedia:List of AfDs closing today

23 April 2025
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 22	April 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Woodside Morris Men

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

Blatant promotional nonsense. No indication of notability and no references except for external links to primary sources. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and England. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a couple of references in the local paper which seem fair for notability, eg [1] and [2], but one source isn't enough. Glancing mentions eg [3] and [4] don't count and I couldn't find anything at EFDSS or Newspaper Archive. Unfortunately, there's no List of Morris dance sides to redirect to. Incidentally, the editor who created the page let a message on the talk page saying he had no objection to deleting it. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked for possible redirect targets and Morris dance has an organizations section, but it only highlights Morris Ring. Woodside, London doesn't list organizations. The work to make a redirect make sense isn't justified by the limited sourcing Cohen found above. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be little grounds for notability here. There are not really any major RSes supporting this, therefore, it is speculation whether the majority of the content on this page is even accurate. Either way, it lacks the notability to justify being a page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sources for notability. Full of promotional tone . Possible COI. Fails GNG.WikiMentor01 (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles of Guru Gobind Singh

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

Undiscussed and unnecessary WP:CFORK. The content already exists at Guru Gobind Singh#Wars. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Sikhism, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hionsa (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not a very experienced Wikipedia editor, but the page WP:CFORK doesn't seem to provide rationale for deletion, as if I've read the guideline correctly then this is an instance of WP:DIFFORK. Stockhausenfan (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:Their no choice left for criterion to make such standalone outfitted statement WP:Keep while their otherworldly Conflict of Interest which should not be premised while carrying on the deletion process for Sikh related sublet WP:Stub— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringroller (talk • contribs) 12:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC) LTA. Abecedare (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No need for this separate article. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trish Doan

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

~~I am the creator of this page. I have felt kinda guilty about this for a while because I think I did a terrible job at it. My reasons for deletion are as follows:~~

1. Most of the article is based on an web source from the Headbanging Moose, which I realise now is unverifiable/not an interview. In one recent search I found it was citing text from a Tumblr interview (alas that too was inaccessible). Either way; bad source, which makes up most of the article. Also, Hergirlrock and trishdoan.com are primary sources

2. Most of the reliable source coverage about Trish concerns her departure from the band in 2008, or her death in 2017. I feel both of these can be explained just as well in the Kittie band article or in other related articles (i.e. the documentary stuff)

3. When I made this page, I thought I was doing so primarily because I though Trish was an underrated bassist on Funeral for Yesterday and I wanted them to be known for other stuff outside of their struggles. In hindsight and in other words, I was trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I am kinda more accepting of the fact that shit things do happen to people. I recognise the feelings I had at the time (aka when this was made; 2023) reflected my life situation which I didn't think I had a way out of at the time, and as such my edits were kinda projections of that mentality. I'm in a better place now (in part thanks to Funeral for Yesterday, actually) but I still feel as though I failed. If I made things worse, I am sorry.

~~// Chchcheckit (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, South Korea, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kittie. Thanks to the nominator for being honest. Per Wikipedia's rules for the notability of band members, evidence is needed that Trish Doan accomplished additional notable things outside of Kittie, but that just didn't happen. Info on her early bands and day jobs are fan trivia but don't pass the notability test. On the other hand, her achievements within Kittie, and sadly her death and how it affected the band, are Kittie-specific and can be adequately described at their article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I lean more towards Redirect then: the point about how it affected the band is very much described on Fire (Kittie album) and Doan has mentions in two other album articles (FFY and I've Failed You) anyway. // Chchcheckit (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep well sourced article. If the page cannot be kept, it should be redirected to Kittie. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the article should be kept in tact, so the page should not be deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
understood Chchcheckit (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I don't think deletion is an appropriate decision given the nominator's rationale, and I don't think merging the article is better than the status quo of keeping the article as it is because the rationale doesn't make sense. Paraphrasing but "I think this section can be covered in another article so we should get rid of the whole article" isn't convincing and doesn't make a clear connection to deletion policy. The sourcing seems mostly fine to me because most aren't unreliable and of course a niche musician is going to be covered mostly by outlets in their niche. Having reporting after certain events isn't a disqualifying factor at all either; I'm not sure what is meant by that. Yue🌙 06:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean in the sense that most of the text used to make the body of the article is based on unreliable sourcing so it's like Chchcheckit (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with Kittie: In solidarity with the page creator, Chchcheckit. There are three sections individualizing Trish Doan from her band. "Early life" is based on two sources and both seem to be dubious (hergirlrock.com. and THE HEADBANGING MOOSE), especially as primary sources for this section. "Return to Kittie and Kittie.." is based on self-published source (robmccallumfilms.com) and has a nice but brief sentences on her depression. "Death" is the best section, but it would be sad article if 90% of it is about the subject's death. Most of the information backed up by reliable sources can be merged with Kittie. LastJabberwocky (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "It would be sad article if 90% of it is about the subject's death" is NOT a good reason to delete the page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  which is not the point Chchcheckit (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  If a significant article can be written about the death, the page can still remain. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Then it is settled Chchcheckit (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it would be better to fix a problem rather than delete and run away from it. I realise I am being a fucking coward. // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearwater station (British Columbia)

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

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. No reliable secondary sources cited in the article. WP:N. This "station" is nothing more than a line in a timetable and a dot on a map. 162 etc. (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clearwater, British Columbia § Transportation: This seems like a reasonable WP:ATD, plus I have no luck finding significant coverage to justify the station's noability. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per EditorGirl. I'm going to take a peek at other stations that might not meet notability either. Moritoriko (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per EditorGirl.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Lacks evidence for WP:SIGCOV. No reliable secondary sources . Redirect to appropriate target as suggested above by other editors. WikiMentor01 (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Course of Action

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

There is no evidence of notability. In my WP:BEFORE search, I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Many of the sources are press releases, profile listings, social media posts and unreliable blogs. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC.

Also nominating the band's album and single articles for the same reasons:

Dark Before the Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Treason (A Course of Action album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rocklahoma (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Never There (A Course of Action song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beautiful (A Course of Action song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Who We Are (A Course of Action song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
107 (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Frost 13:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Albums and songs. Frost 13:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This band while not achieving large mainstream success was very active for over 16 years with multiple albums, EP's, and singles. Also, this band participated in numerous large music festivals allover the United States that toured in support of various different mainstream acts. To delete such articles, especially of a group who was active for nearly two decades would be a great disservice. After all, is Wikipedia not an open-sourced community open for individuals to share their knowledge of something that others are not familiar with? I mean no disrespect to the individual who nominated this article for deletion, but I spent well over a week researching this artist to verify all these facts and sources to confirm all the information is factual. The lack of sources from major outlets is due to the fact the band has been inactive for nearly a decade and many sources are long gone and were not saved to the internet archive. But as stated I spent over a week combing through old videos and interviews from the band directly to confirm all the details were true and correct without positive or negative bias. I'm just a fan of music with a goal of preserving the history of artists and bands who left their mark on the industry, and though A Course of Action didn't make a historic mark like The Beatles or Michael Jackson, nearly two decades of activity and releases would be a tragedy to just forget about and label as non-noteworthy. Bruteforce7700 (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a different definition of notability for an article to be accepted - it largely falls on whether multiple reliable, independent, and significant sources exist or not. There doesn't seem to be any that discuss the band or its singles and albums significantly, and none of the sources in the articles contribute to notability:
A Course of Action: 24-7pressrelease.com, acourseofaction.com, airplaydirect.com, amazon.com, broadjam.com, cdbaby.com, crypticrock.com, discogs.com, facebook.com, youtube.com, myspace.com, spotify.com, iheart.com, hickoryrecord.com, mtsmanagementgroup.com, museboat.com, music2deal.com, muzicnotez.com, prweb.com, reverbnation.com, rockrevoltmagazine.com, sellaband.com, songs-that-should-be-mainstream.blogspot.com, sonicbids.com, sromag.wordpress.com, teenviewmusic.com, thehybridband.com, wsfairgrounds.com, backstagelosangeles.net, last.fm, musify.club, prlog.org, rockunderground.tv

Dark Before the Dawn: bandcamp.com, acourseofaction.com, cdbaby.com, crypticrock.com, museboat.com, apple.com, spotify.com, prostudiolive.net, 24-7pressrelease.com, amazon.com, backstagelosangeles.net, broadjam.com, discogs.com, last.fm, prlog.org, prweb.com, reverbnation.com, rockrevoltmagazine.com, shazam.com

Treason (A Course of Action album): acourseofaction.com, echo-asylum.com, reverbnation.com, rockrevoltmagazine.com, crypticrock.com, hickoryrecord.com, music.apple.com, musictalkers.com, myglobalmind.com, open.spotify.com, buffalochip.com, discogs.com, last.fm, prlog.org, prweb.com, setlist.fm, sonicbids.com, unratedmetal.com, youtube.com

Rocklahoma (EP): music.apple.com, musictalkers.com, open.spotify.com, switchbitchnoise.com, web.archive.org, reverbnation.com, acourseofaction.com, hickoryrecord.com, discogs.com, last.fm, prweb.com, sonicbids.com, unratedmetal.com

Never There (A Course of Action song): acourseofaction.com, reverbnation.com, rockrevoltmagazine.com, museboat.com, music.apple.com, open.spotify.com, songs-that-should-be-mainstream.blogspot.com, amazon.com, broadjam.com, discogs.com, last.fm, prweb.com

Beautiful (A Course of Action song): musictalkers.com, myglobalmind.com, spotify.com, switchbitchnoise.com, reverbnation.com, acourseofaction.com, unratedmetal.com, 24-7pressrelease.com, buffalochip.com, discogs.com, last.fm, prlog.org, prweb.com, sonicbids.com

Who We Are (A Course of Action song): acourseofaction.com, echo-asylum.com, reverbnation.com, rockrevoltmagazine.com, broadjam.com, spotify.com, 24-7pressrelease.com, discogs.com, last.fm, prweb.com, sonicbids.com, unratedmetal.com, youtube.com

107 (song): open.spotify.com, web.archive.org, discogs.com, last.fm, prlog.org, prweb.com, reverbnation.com, sonicbids.com

AllMusic [5][6][7], is reliable but is not significant, as it contains nothing more than a credit listing.
Frost 06:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominated and deleted once before in an AfD ten years ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Course Of Action. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, why is this even a discussion? KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I really don't want to delete the page took so much work to assemble, while most of the pages marked for deletion barely have anything. BUT as pointed out there is only one good source AllMusic. There are a couple of interviews but they don't contribute to notability, because they are generated by the subject of an interview. The article can be transferred to https://rock.fandom.com or something similar. LastJabberwocky (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Ratcliff

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

This WP:BLP on a video game developer has had an unresolved references tag for six months. The article is currently sourced to two reviews of games he was apparently involved in creating, which do not provide WP:SIGCOV.

A standard WP:BEFORE (newspapers.com, Google News, JSTOR, and Google Books) fails to redeem, though the search is slightly frustrated by the common name and the fact there is a well-known John Ratcliffe. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a plausible game's article to redirect his article to either. MimirIsSmart (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Lacks independent sources. Fails GNG. Go per nom. WikiMentor01 (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roshena Campbell

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

Unelected candidate. Fails WP:NPOL. All sources currently pertain to her candidacy in the 2023 Aston by-election where she was unsuccessful. Sources relating to her local government role do not provide significant coverage. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Politics, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Melbourne is a big city. Its council members are likely to be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely the Lord Mayor but other than that, no other local government members have inherit notability (in my opinion). GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Not only is the Deputy Lord Mayor of Australia's largest city an inherently notable position, but contrary to the claim in the nomination it's also an elected one, which she won in 2024: we even have an article about it at 2024 Melbourne City Council election. She was previously also elected to the council in 2020 and that election, too, is notable enough to have an article: 2020 Melbourne City Council election. Last but not least, it's trivial to find WP:RS that do not involve the 2023 by-election, and here's a selection:

Jpatokal (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES, mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". While she is not Lord Mayor, she is a citywide elected official as Deputy Lord Mayor and ran on a ticket with the incumbent Lord Mayor. The City of Melbourne (population 149,000) is a regionally significant city. That fact, combined with the coverage shown by Jpatoka, tells me that the subject LIKELY warrants an individual article depending on the specifics of the position (i.e. powers/responsibilities). I would need to know these before voting. If this were purely a city councilor who ran in a by-election, I would be a delete vote, so I'm really staking this on citywide officeholder with a real job in regionally significant city who has the coverage Jpatoka has identified.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For context, since Australian municipal structures are a bit odd: the lowercase-c city of Melbourne is Australia's largest, with over 5.2 million people scattered across 31 "local government areas" (LGA). The uppercase-c City of Melbourne is the LGA covering the entire city center, and while the population living within the LGA is relatively low, its Lord Mayor & council wields outsize influence because they directly control zoning etc for all the largest businesses, restaurants, nightlife, transport hubs etc etc, and they're also the closest thing there is to a leader of the entire city.

As a rough US analogy, it would be like if New York City didn't have a single mayor, but instead had a "Mayor of Manhattan", and there were 30 other boroughs, not 4. Jpatokal (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpen320: As far as I am aware from doing a bit of research the deputy Lord Mayor has the same power/responsibilities as a regular council expect they sub in for the Lord Mayor when they are away. For a bit of context, these are some of the sources available for the Deputy Lord Mayor of Sydney [8]. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe this to be closer to an edge case than the AfD nominator. I appreciate User:GMH Melbourne's follow-up descriptor and relation to NYC. I will note that Mark Levine and the other four Borough presidents do have articles, BUT the least populous borough (Staten Island) has 495,747 residents. Prior to reading the reply, I did find the statutory powers given to Deputy Mayors in Local Government Act of 2020 via the Australasian Legal Information Institute. The Deputy Mayor role seems like an at-large city council member a role whose holder is neither presumed or not presumed to warrant an individual article. Once election coverage is removed from citations and what is offered in the AfD (which is about the elections for which we have the articles 2024 Melbourne City Council election and 2023 Aston by-election respectively, not the candidates themselves), there is one local profile in which the subject provides a substantial amount of content, failing the independent of the subject criterion in GNG. I see us in WP:TOOSOON territory for Campbell. I do not think this nomination, if a deletion is found to be appropriate, this AfD should be used in the event of a recreation down the line if/when facts on the ground change.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your line of argumentation is absurd. Campbell is a notable career politician who has been successfully elected twice, contested a nationally notable by-election once, and was covered by national media even before all this. You can't just wave a magic wand and say she's not notable if you ignore all the sources about four separate elections across five years, aka her political career. Jpatokal (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elections by and large (particularly national government by-elections) are notable events. Participants in notable events (i.e. the candidates) are not necessarily notable for participating nor does coverage of their actions in such events make them notable except for unique circumstances (Christine O'Donnell or Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson) in the U.S.) I know Australian equivalents were discussed in the discussion on Wikipedia Talk that you started. I explicitly do not discount an individual article in the future even without WP:NPOL in my determination as your assertion above, that an elected official's political career is getting elected is false. Presumably, if this is the unique circumstance where a local elected official warrants a stand alone article, they would have done things in office other than participate in elections that would be part of their career.
I understand the nominator did not realize the subject was elected to office, but it is not an office that passes WP:NPOL so you need independent coverage. Bullet point #2 is largely quoting the person and thus is not independent of the subject. How would I know that if I ignored it? I have been in multiple AfDs in which you point to the quantity of sources. Quantity is part of WP:GNG, but it is not its totality nor do other considerations such as WP:NOPAGE fly out the window.
You note in your !keepvote Melbourne is the largest city in Australia. She is not the Deputy Mayor of ALL of what can be called Melbourne, just the City of Melbourne as a local government area. Wikipedia's list of local government areas by population notes the City of Melbourne as the 33rd most populous LGA in Australia. The City of Casey is the largest LGA in Victoria. The size of the jurisdiction is not getting you over the top here.--Mpen320 (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already explained above, the Australian cities do not work like American cities. The City of Melbourne is far more important than any of the random suburban sprawl LGAs like Casey, and is responsible for things like defining the vision and goals of the entire metropolitan area. This pattern is consistent across Australian cities: Sydney's suburban City of Blacktown (#4 in Australia) is nearly twice the population of the City of Sydney, but Blacktown's mayor is not notable enough to warrant an article, while the office of the Deputy Lord Mayor of Sydney has its own article. Jpatokal (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I actually do consider what you write in discussions. Did you miss that in addition to asking, I also looked up the statutory powers of the position? I think my past contributions demonstrate not only a strong interest in the subject matter of government and politics, but also the means to research and understand topics. Finally, I have no doubt that the City of Melbourne is more important than Casey. I was replying to the argument made of size, not an argument of prominence. It is Easter weekend so I will be taking a break and letting this AfD play out.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - elected deputy mayor of a regionally important city probably passes NPOL. The rule that unelected candidates don't get articles only applies when they lose election. She won. She lost a different election. Many successful, notable politicians will sometimes lose election. Are we going to delete Franklin D. Roosevelt because he lost election as Vice President? Bearian (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The election she lost was a Federal seat. The election she won is a local councillor which isn’t notable under WP:NPOL. GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. Being the unelected deputy mayor of a city of 150,000 isn't notable. Obi2canibe (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect: it's an elected position and she has been elected to it twice. And as explained above, the City of Melbourne is not a "city of 150,000", but the core of a metropolis of 5 million people. Jpatokal (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Campbell hasn't been elected deputy mayor twice. She has only been deputy mayor since 2024. And even then she wasn't elected directly, she only got the position by riding on the coat tails of incumbent mayor Nick Reece. In the 2020 election she ran as a candidate as an ordinary councillor and received only 58 votes - she only became a councillor because of the votes received by the ticket she was a part of.

If Campbell is the deputy mayor of "a metropolis of 5 million people", then how come only 137,000 people were eligible to vote in the election you claim she was elected at? Is Melbourne stuck in the 19th century where only a tiny fraction of its adult population are eligible to vote? Claiming that Campbell is deputy mayor of Melbourne is like saying that Alastair King is the mayor of London. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, the City of Melbourne is not a "city of 150,000", but the core of a metropolis of 5 million people. A closer equivalence would be the Greater London Authority, although no such body exists in Melbourne. Per The Age, "The lord mayor presides over the Melbourne City Council and is the city's first citizen. Because of the central city's powerful symbolic role, the lord mayor can expect more public attention than the mayor of any surrounding metropolitan or Victorian provincial city. The lord mayor speaks for Melbourne." And remember, notability is not judged on legal powers, but how well they are known. Jpatokal (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Campbell is not the deputy mayor of Greater Melbourne, she is the mayor of the City of Melbourne. These are not the same thing, and therefore the original comment about the population being around 150,000 is not incorrect. Greater Melbourne comprises of 31 Local Government Areas, The City of Melbourne being just one of them. So being the so-called "core" of 5 million people makes no sense. Viatori (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since Greater Melbourne is not a legal entity, the Lord Mayor of the City of Melbourne serves as the city's de facto leader. Jpatokal (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Lord Mayor of Member (nor the Deputy Lord Mayor) has ever exercised power that affected anything outside of the City of Melbourne LGA's boundaries. Nor have they represented anywhere outside of the City of Melbourne LGA's boundaries at functions, events, etc. GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The population of the City of Melbourne was 149,615 at the 2021 census. Please stop saying it has population of 5 million. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I don't think the article should be deleted, and I think the subject has sufficient notability, but it seems the consensus is that Australian deputy mayor pages should be deleted and even I don't agree with the other keep arguments here. Viatori (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think we have clear consensus from previous AFDs that merely having coverage about being a federal/state political candidate or being a local councillor does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. TarnishedPath^talk 12:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Femosphere

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

Fails WP:GNG – The topic lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. No academic or mainstream journalistic coverage establishes “femosphere” as a notable or recognized term. Academic sources cited in the article discuss adjacent but distinct topics (e.g., femcels, dating discourse), not the term itself.

Fails WP:RS/WP:V – The article relies on unreliable or non-independent sources, including YouTube videos, Reddit subreddits, and lifestyle blogs. Many claims are vaguely attributed or not verifiable at all.

Violates WP:FRINGE and WP:OR – The article synthesizes disparate online trends into a unified ideology without support from reliable sources. It presents “femosphere” as parallel to the “manosphere” without demonstrating scholarly or journalistic consensus. This constitutes original research and gives undue weight to an unestablished term.

Violates WP:NOTADVOCACY – The tone and framing of the article reflect ideological positioning. Phrases like “weaponising femininity” and “pervasive misandry” are ideologically charged and lack sourcing from neutral, reliable outlets.

Possible COI – The article was created within a week and appears to be part of coordinated promotion on Reddit. Several posts strongly suggest the article was written or commissioned by an individual promoting the term. This violates Wikipedia’s policies on conflict of interest and promotional content.

Misrepresents sources – The article distorts the argument made in its only scholarly source that actually uses the term “femosphere” (Kay, 2024). That source is a critique, framing the “femosphere” as a reactionary, bio-essentialist, and anti-liberationist discourse that mirrors manosphere logic. It is not a neutral or widely-accepted term. The Wikipedia article removes this critique, violating WP:V and WP:OR, and gives WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe concept coined by a single author. HairlessPolarBear (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing formatting of this page and will list it, procedurally taking no opinion at this time. Skynxnex (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Social science. Skynxnex (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I thank HairlessPolarBear for attempting to contribute, it appears that they are not using the AfD process in the spirit in which it’s intended. As a friendly comment to them, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable, neutral, and objective articles. It is not anybody’s personal soapbox; nor is it a playground for the deletion of information that does not suit one’s agenda. As a good citizen, I find myself compelled to remind HairlessPolarBear that repeated, bad-faith usage of the AfD process could result in a permanent ban from the site.

Because Wikipedia requires me to respond to HairlessPolarBear’s claims, I shall do so – though I note that I would ordinarily save everybody time and energy by simply ignoring baseless assertions.

As a summary of HairlessPolarBear’s assertions, they appear to have employed a ‘spray ‘n’ pray’ approach to Wikipedia guideline violations in the hope that one of them might ‘stick’. Fortunately, the improper citing of the violations is so manifest as to be easily spotted and dismissed by any genuinely impartial administrator.

To address each assertion in turn:

“Fails WP:GNG”

The article is underpinned by numerous reliable, independent sources that discuss the femosphere as a phenomenon. Subsidiary to this, numerous additional sources discuss femcels – a key demographic of the femosphere. If the administrator is in any doubt, they need only Google “femosphere”. Doing so will return thousands of reliable, independent sources that demonstrate significant notability of the subject and broad recognition of the term.

“Fails WP:RS/WP:V”

This is a profoundly misleading claim. The article does not “rely” on these subreddits as sources; rather, it mentions them as points of interest in exactly the same way that the “manosphere” Wikipedia article does, as shown in this extract from the manosphere article:

“…such as /r/incels (banned in 2017), its successor /r/braincels (banned in 2018), and /r/MGTOW (banned in August 2021); other subreddits such as /r/TheRedPill”

Regarding the YouTube links, in no way do these underpin the article as “sources”; rather, I provided these links as points of interest for readers.

The references to subreddits and YouTube could be removed entirely and the integrity of the article would be unaffected.

“Violates WP:FRINGE and WP:OR”

This is incorrect and HairlessPolarBear appears to be confusing the fact that the femosphere is itself an umbrella term for multiple, disparate subgroups with the idea that it lacks a precise definition. I suggest that they Google “umbrella term”. None of the article constitutes original research – I do not understand how they arrived at this idea.

“Violates WP:NOTADVOCACY”

This is the only claim that may have some validity. It is always difficult to articulate controversial (and, in the case of the femosphere, toxic) ideas in a way that uses objective language but that also clearly communicates to the reader the danger and severity of the underlying ideologies.

I would be happy to modify this language, should anyone wish to suggest suitable alternatives.

“Possible COI”

This is claim appears to have been entirely fabricated. I have no conflict of interest and I did not write the article in collaboration with anybody else; nor am I active on Reddit in terms of posting/commenting.

Entering “femosphere” as a search term on Reddit does indeed bring up numerous posts that span several years. Whilst my search was cursory, I could not identify any co-ordinated links between the posts. Rather, the search results actually contradict HairlessPolarBear’s claims; that is, the femosphere is clearly a very well-documented and broadly discussed term.

One could be forgiven for thinking that it is, in fact, HairlessPolarBear who has the conflict of interest in this case.

“Misrepresents sources”

I’m not suggesting that HairlessPolarBear didn’t bother reading the article before recommending it for deletion, but if they had read it then they would have noticed the first bullet point on the list describing femosphere radicalisation narratives:

“A rejection of liberal feminism, asserting that it has failed to deliver a world consistent with feminists’ aspirations.”

This rejection of liberal feminism is the “reactionary, bio-essentialist, and anti-liberationist” critique that HairlessPolarBear asserts has been “removed”. I would be happy to expand on this point in the article, for clarity, but not doing so would not invalidate the article itself.

As a broader point, HairlessPolarBear appears to be suggesting that I have attempted to frame the femosphere in a positive light. How they drew this conclusion is beyond me! They will note that I explicitly described femosphere discourse as “toxic”. I could not have been more clear on this point.

In conclusion regarding HairlessPolarBear’s AfD assertions, I note that not only are all of their assertions (apart from, perhaps, the type of language used in two of the sentences) wrong, but all of them are opinion-based only and they do not in any way reflect an objective or evidence-based argument. I shall repeat here my above thought about which of us really has the conflict of interest.

In conclusion regarding the article, the article covers a subject of significant notability and is supported by numerous reliable, independent sources. Moreover, the femosphere is currently a subject of intensive debate and study in academia, the media, and among the public. Considering this, and all of the above, the femosphere deserves its own Wikipedia article and I am confident that the article I have written is in full accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines.

I therefore vote to KEEP the article, and I implore any administrator reviewing this to do the same in the name of intellectual and moral integrity. Daft Elephant (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the above formatting. I'm not sure why the spaces between paragraphs were removed and I can't see a way to edit it. Daft Elephant (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~* delete~~ – does not meet notability, sourcing, or neutrality standards. I recommend deletion based on the following Wikipedia policies:

1. Notability (WP:GNG): The term femosphere does not meet the general notability guideline. It has not received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. The only scholarly source that uses the term—Kay (2024)—critiques it as a reactionary, bio-essentialist, anti-liberationist discourse. Other references discuss related topics (e.g., femcels or dating culture) but do not establish "femosphere" as a recognized concept. To clarify: while one academic source (Kay, 2024) does use the term, it does so critically, not as part of a broader academic consensus. This reinforces the argument that the term lacks the type of sustained, neutral secondary coverage required under WP:GNG.

2. Reliable Sourcing and Verifiability (WP:RS / WP:V): The article includes sources such as Reddit and YouTube, which are not considered reliable under Wikipedia standards. Even if not cited as core references, their presence undermines the article’s verifiability and neutrality.

3. Neutrality and Undue Weight (WP:NPOV / WP:UNDUE): The article frames “femosphere” as a coherent, established ideological counterpart to the manosphere, without sufficient evidence of scholarly or journalistic consensus. This grants undue weight to a marginal or emerging term.

4. Original Research and Synthesis (WP:OR / WP:SYNTH): The article synthesizes disparate online communities and cultural trends into a unified concept that is not reflected in reliable sources. This violates Wikipedia's prohibition on original editorial synthesis.

5. Advocacy and Tone (WP:NOTADVOCACY): Phrases such as “weaponising femininity” and “pervasive misandry” reflect ideologically charged language without reliable sourcing. Even if the editor is willing to revise these, the article’s broader framing remains ideologically constructed rather than neutrally descriptive.

6. Recentism and Neologism Concerns (WP:NEO): The article was created just 7 days ago. While recency alone does not disqualify a topic, it does raise flags when combined with low coverage and a newly coined term. Wikipedia is not a platform for popularizing emerging neologisms.

In sum, this article does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability, sourcing, neutrality, or encyclopedic framing. I respectfully recommend deletion. If the concept gains reliable coverage in the future, it can always be reconsidered.

HairlessPolarBear (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is a direct recapitulation of @HairlessPolarBear's original comment above and does not contain any new points. As such, it constitutes harrassment and I once again impress upon the administrators that this is a clear case of @HairlessPolarBear having a conflict of interest in attempting to have an article deleted because it does not promote their agenda.

I have comprehensively refuted these baseless assertions above and shall not do so again here. I shall, however, suggest that @HairlessPolarBear felt compelled to repeat their original comment to distract from the fact that I so thoroughly and objectively refuted their baseless assertions.

I shall be following this up with the administrators because, clearly, a single rogue editor in the form of @HairlessPolarBear is able to wreak havoc on a notable, neutral, and objectively-written article - not to mention the enormous amount of everybody's time they have wasted.

As I have discussed in detail above, any genuinely impartial administrator would never uphold any of @HairlessPolarBear's assertions. Daft Elephant (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Based on the commentary provided by non-nominators + reviewing the article, rationale provided is erroneous and this should be kept through WP:CSK criteria 3. Given the article was nominated by a single-purpose account created on April 23 2025 I am also suspicious of motives.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (although I see no reason for speedy; it's reasonable to have a discussion). I've done a quick web search, and it seems to me that the topic passes WP:GNG. I can fully understand and sympathize with the view that this might be some sort of attempt to weaponize the concept of manosphere, but it does look to me like this is "a thing", regardless of whether it is distasteful. If there are POV problems with the tone of the page, and there might well be, that should be fixed through normal editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep might have pov issues, maybe the article needs TNT, but sourcing suggests notability to concept Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG, any POV or other issues notwithstanding, which per policy are of course irrelevant to deletion. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above comments, this article passes GNG. In this way, notability does not mean agreeing with the content, but that there is enough coverage that this article should exist per WP:5P1. FULBERT (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to the above editors for their contributions. I have adjusted the tone and added sections. I’d welcome more suggestions on how to improve the article.

I’m also thankful to @Anonrfjwhuikdzz for pointing out that the rogue editor who nominated the article for deletion did so with a single-use account that was clearly created with the sole purpose of vandalising the article (I hadn't realised this previously). @Skynxnex I’ve reached out to the administrators about this here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daft_Elephant), but I’m not sure if I’ve used the “Admin help” feature correctly – please could you advise? Daft Elephant (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep but the article needs to be rewritten to be more encyclopedic.★Trekker (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Thank you to all editors who have contributed to this discussion. I appreciate the thoughtful comments and would like to clarify my nomination in light of the updated article.

Key Content Policy Concerns (Still Unresolved) Neutrality and Attribution (WP:NPOV, WP:V) The article continues to present editorial claims as fact, without appropriate attribution to reliable sources.

- It describes the "femosphere" as a "body of (broadly misandrist) feminist spaces" without citing a reliable, independent secondary source using that framing. - It outlines "radicalisation narratives" without clear attribution to reliable secondary sources, violating neutrality standards.

Simply labeling a topic "toxic" does not resolve neutrality issues. Wikipedia requires verifiable sourcing and proper attribution, not editorial judgment.

A neutral summary would describe the "femosphere" as "loosely connected communities, some of which have been criticized for promoting toxic or reactionary narratives" — rather than editorializing about a unified ideology of misandry.

Original Research and Synthesis (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH) The article synthesizes disparate phenomena (femcels, tradwives, dating discourse) into a single radicalisation framework that no reliable source defines.

- No secondary source establishes that the femosphere constitutes an organized radicalisation pipeline. - Sources critique aspects of online feminism (e.g., femcels), but they do not link them into a coherent radical movement against men.

The current structure invents connections not made by reliable sources, which constitutes prohibited original research.

Misrepresentation and Misuse of Sources (WP:V, WP:NPOV) Several cited sources are used improperly:

- Kay (2024) critiques the "femosphere" as a reactionary discourse but does not present it as a unified radicalisation network. - Healy (2024) critically discusses toxic elements in some communities but emphasizes the fractured, emerging nature of the "femosphere" — not a coherent radicalisation system.

The article overstates both the strength of the connections between communities and the severity of their ideological coherence, granting undue weight to marginal interpretations.

Moreover, sources like social media references, YouTube videos, and Reddit posts are not sufficient to establish verifiable, neutral claims about radicalisation pipelines.

Structural Deficiencies: Unsourced "Narratives" Section (WP:V, WP:OR) The "femosphere radicalisation narratives" section remains unsourced editorial synthesis:

- The bullet points do not cite reliable sources that explicitly group these narratives together. - Even if reworded, the section would violate WP:OR because the thematic structure itself is not supported by independent secondary sources.

This section would need to be fully removed or radically reconstructed based on solid sourcing.

Why TNT ("Blow It Up and Start Over") Is the Appropriate Standard This article's problems are foundational:

- Neutrality issues are structural, not superficial. - Original research cannot be patched with minor edits. - Sourcing does not support the current framing or organization.

Normal editing is insufficient. Significant rewriting — possibly rebuilding the topic from scratch with better sourcing — would be required to meet Wikipedia standards.

Additional Note: Systemic Bias Tag At one point, another editor added a "too few perspectives" (systemic bias) tag based on these neutrality concerns. Although the tag has since been removed, its prior placement demonstrates that concerns about neutrality and representation were independently recognized by editors beyond the nominator. (See [Wikipedia:Countering Systemic Bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias)).

Conclusion The topic may merit eventual inclusion, but the current version of the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality, verifiability, or avoidance of original research.

Therefore, I respectfully recommend deletion.

If better sourcing emerges in the future, a properly neutral, policy-compliant article could always be created.

Thank you again for considering these points carefully. HairlessPolarBear (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON and WP:TLDR. And these are things that can be addressed through the normal editing and revision process. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎ and WP:SNOW per both the block evasion and no chance of deletion with this nom. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Brian Thompson

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

aside from the massive media coverage, I challenge the community to say what makes Brian Thompson notable on Wikipedia. —-Anonymous 22:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:b835:a210:f4ff:9ba1:8b23:519e (talk) 22:43, April 23, 2025 (UTC)

Keep The "massive media coverage" makes him notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the article is about the killing (the event), not Brian Thompson. Seems like the nominator has been blocked for block evasion. HJ Mitchell, can this AfD be closed? Some1 (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep UnitedHealthcare is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, the 8th ranked company on the Fortune 500. The very, very high profile murder and manhunt make this notable. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC) AnonymousScholar49[reply]
Strong Keep, WP:SIGCOV is clearly met here. 162 etc. (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

1 Republican vs. 25 Kamala Harris Voters

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

Fails WP:NEVENT as a viral phenomenon with no WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Most of the coverage is just sensationalist reactions in biased sources immediately after the video was released, and the only one of these sources that is generally reliable is PinkNews (Edit: The Mary Sue is also reliable). There are some passing mentions in "serious" pieces in Variety and The Atlantic, but not significant coverage. Can be redirected to Surrounded (web series)#Episodes. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Sexuality and gender, Internet, and United States of America. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article considering it to have lasting notability because while it's true that most of the sources were immediately after (though I will note The Mary Sue is also listed as generally reliable on WP:Perennial sources, and the conversations I've found and several I didn't link have agreed that Boing Boing is generally reliable), it's the main example in both the Variety and The Atlantic articles as a reference point to how the show achieved that popularity. The headline of the Variety article even is describing the episode featuring Shapiro as unusual and is, a month after release, talking about his appearance on the show and how popular it was, and the contents of the article feature it as its prime example to say "this show is popular." Similarly, the The Atlantic article mentions it as ranking among the most popular election-related videos on YouTube, several months after release. It's seemingly the go-to example of "Surrounded is popular," which to me confers notoriety and passes SUSTAINED. As for NEVENT, the article isn't covered as an event, but rather as WP:NTVEP, which I'd say it definitely passes. It has a good amount of RSs cited, a good amount of it is "Analysis" and "Reception" which is fine per NTVEP and the reason for the biased (although not unreliable) sources. -Jessica3801 (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I missed that The Mary Sue is considered reliable. WP:BOINGBOING has unclear reliability that depends on the author. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This event is not deserving of an article, per nom plus the fact that if we keep this as an article, to be consistent we'd have to make a Wikipedia page for every semi-viral video, which is a ridiculous premise. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC) AnonymousScholar49[reply]
weak delete: I can't find RS about this. Source 2 is about this thing, 3 and 4 are mentions of it. So one good source, two partial sources, I don't think it's quite enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Surrounded (web series), non-lasting coverage but it has decent coverage on that page. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sustained coverage, WP:NEVENT jolielover♥talk 05:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I considered the redirect mentioned above but I don't think this is a notable enough event/video to receive its own redirect. As an idea it is mostly notable in the concept of the web series and I think the paragraph or two on that page is a good amount of text for what it is. Moritoriko (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is one Youtube video, hardly worthy of a page. If every viral or semi-viral Youtube video was given a page, there is no limiting principle on what should be given a page. I would also support an effort to Redirect to Surrounded (web series)#Episodes Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all suitable for an independent article. Lacks significant coverage to meet GNG. Can consider Redirect to suitable target as discussed. WikiMentor01 (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Cruz Alano

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

Roberto Cruz Alano is a Barangay Captain in Manila. This means that he is in charge of the Barangay, the lowest level of administrative politics in the Philippines. There are 42,011 Barangays in the Philippines. This person does NOT pass WP:NPOL. He has not been part of any major events, wars, scandals, elections, viral moments, or anything beyond the run of the mill city initiatives. Parts of this article subtly feel like violations of WP:NOTPROMO, particularly the section about his "social media to connect with constituents" and all of the info about local initiatives. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. None of the references in the article demonstrate notability of the subject. Ref#1 is a spreadsheet document from the DILG, containing complete list of local government officials in the National Capital Region. Ref#2 is a citation to the Wikipedia article Moonwalk, Parañaque, which is a violation of WP:CIRCULAR. Ref#3 cites the subject's Facebook account, which violates both WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF. Ref#4, while from the Manila Bulletin, only offers a passing mention of the subject and does not meet the threshold for WP:SIGCOV. In a nutshell, none of these sources make the subject pass WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, WP:NPOL made it clear that by just being an elected local official...does not guarantee notability. AstrooKai (Talk) 13:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Perhaps there are non-English language resources but a search for citations to demonstrate WP:NBIO turned up nothing reliable. Vegantics (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreeing mostly with AstrooKai 's analysis, ref 1 being just a general info on gov officials, ref 2 being more about the location of governance rather than the subject itself, as for Ref#4 yes it is indeed from one of the more established News institution in the Philippines, upon closer look, mentions actually the successor of the subject rather than the subject himself.Villkomoses (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as I keep seeing this argument "delete fails WP:NPOL". Failing WP:NPOL is not an automatic pass for deletion: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline" (emphasis mine). The opposite does not hold, "The following are presumed to be notable", so WP:GNG can be bypassed for someone who passes WP:NPOL. For this guy he does not pass WP:GNG either. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining that to me -- I'll make sure to take that into account in future AfDs. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a low level bureaucrat, he does not rise to WP:NPOL. Also, it only links to a few bad sources, including another Wikipedia page and a Facebook link. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles T. Hurley

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

BLP about a university registrar. It appears to fail notability criteria for WP:NACADEMIC: registrar is a common position and not listed as a leadership role. Also fails WP:NBIO for sigcov: sources are only in-house publications; any secondary sources found are only mentions that cover the University, not the individual. Awards appear to be minor, local and given to the University office. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither PROF nor GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robbin Laird

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

This article has had an unresolved sourcing tag for eight years. Now it's time for it to go.

This BLP has two non-RS sources. A standard WP:BEFORE finds prodigious instances of the name in Google News but, on close examination, these are each instances of bylined articles by the subject which are, therefore, not WP:INDEPENDENT. No other sources offer WP:SIGCOV. The so-called "awards" listed in the article are unsourced (and aren't even awards!), therefore, don't meet WP:AWARD. While he seems to have written a score of technical books that *might* have been reviewed, they don't meet the high standards required under WP:NAUTHOR. Chetsford (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A cursory search on JSTOR comes up with a very large number of reviews of his books. While many of these are brief (reflecting in part the age of the work), I think that it is enough for a solid pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Reviews include [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Getting reviews in journals doesn't pass the NAUTHOR criterion of "a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Chetsford (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It meets the 3rd NAUTHOR criterion, specifically the part that says "work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of criterion 3 is that the work must also be "significant or well known". Was it a New York Times bestseller? No. Any bestseller list? No. The subject of any other commentary other than obligatory inserts in the book review sections of journals? No. Chetsford (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that significant or well-known means NYT bestseller. I am seeing a body of work that past consensus would tend to accept as meeting the NAUTHOR criteria. I'm going to step back and let others comment at this point. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"past consensus would tend to accept" In more than 700 AfD discussions I've never seen there be a consensus that reviews in the reviews sections of academic journals are anything other than WP:ROUTINE for purposes of personal N, let alone that they establish evidence of work being "significant or well known". I think our past consensus has generally accepted book reviews of textbooks and academic readers in journals, which generally languish in obscurity and are seen by no more than dozens or hundreds of people, correctly do not breach the high threshold required for demonstration of "significance". Chetsford (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that is entirely incorrect and book reviews are generally accepted for notability for an academic. Jahaza (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Book reviews here [21], here [22]. Should satisfy author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He certainly meets WP:NAUTHOR, with multiple reviews of his books. The books are not textbooks, and reviews in journals aren't obligatory - many books are listed as Recent Publications or similar without being reviewed. This person is also often quoted in newspapers, and his talks reported on, in the US (and even in the UK) about his views on defence, Soviet threats to NATO and relationship to unified Germany, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NAUTHOR. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets criteria for WP:NAUTHOR. Sources appear to be reliable and independent. WikiMentor01 (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind !voting Keep but -- "Sources appear to be reliable and independent." -- really? There are two sources: (a) a self-publishing platform called smashwords.com that simply contains a photo of Laird, and, (b) sldinfo.com, an organization Laird founded. If we're going to keep this, we have to at least present arguments that will allow us to pretend it's a viable article. Chetsford (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rail transport periodical

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

Unsourced article which admits it is a "tabulation for periodicals which do not have their own articles" - a blatant end-run round WP:GNG and a useless inclusion criteria. It is full of personal opinions and original research. While at least some of these periodicals do exist, there is no way for a reader to tell if they all do. Opolito (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge into List of rail transport–related periodicals. Expanding the latter into (well-cited) tables with ISSN, publisher, and start/end dates would be valuable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we supposed to improve this article before creating the list? I think that list should be merged into this article instead. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decentralist Party of the South

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

No refs on the page for many years. Maybe there are offline or other sources in other languages but I'm not seeing them. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Peru. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. Note for example "Después de su derrocamiento, regresa al Perú y participa en la revolución de 1931 en Arequipa. Impulsa la creación del Partido Descentralista del Sur. Preside la Junta Provisional de Gobierno constituida para convocar inmediatamente elecciones. Cede la presidencia a don David Samanez Ocampo, que luego encabezaría en Lima la Junta Nacional de Gobierno." ([23]) - So the PDS leader became the interim president of the country. Multiple sources affirm that PDS was represented in the Constituent Assembly, and that it brought David Samanez Ocampo to power. --Soman (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok good. Add three good sources to the page and I'll withdraw the afd. JMWt (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how AfD works. Notability is not judged by the presence of sources in the article, nor is AfD supposed to be a forum for clean-up. I refer to WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. --Soman (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry no, this has been unsourced since 2009, there has been plenty of time to add sources. You here claim that there are plenty of sources that meet the GNG, so if it is that easy then add them. If not, your claims are not verified per Wikipedia:Verifiability JMWt (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt the verifiability policy applies to articles exclusively. It does not apply to discussions. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Curbon7 (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman I agree. It might help if you listed a few sources here at the AFD to show they exist -- not everyone speaks enough Spanish to search very effectively to check. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman: Can you provide at least 3 reliable sources that have given significant coverage? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Decentralist Party. Alberto Vegara's chapter "The Fujimori Regime through Tocqueville’s Lens: Centralism, Regime Change, and Peripheral Elites in Contemporary Peru" in Peru in Theory (ed. Paulo Drinot, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014 ISBN 9781137455260 doi:10.1057/9781137455260_2) on page 23 indicates the PDS was a merger of the Nationalist Agrarian Party and the Decentralist Party formed for the 1931 elections. Vegara notes the PDS won 33 of 145 seats in the 1931 Constituent Assembly election (there's some discrepancies with other sources on the the total number of seats won, which I assume has to do with the NAP seats being recorded as independents and the Decentralists separately). The party name could also be translated as Southern Decentralist Party. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Motel

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

Motel that fails WP:SIGCOV, there are plenty of old motels in Las Vegas, as well as homeless shelters, a lot of which do not get their own articles. The motel is mostly too local to merit SIGCOV, which the only notable event to happen was the conversion to a homeless shelter. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

Sources
1. Glionna, John M. (2017-04-22). "Motel, once a haven, now a crime-ridden jungle in downtown Las Vegas". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-04-25. Retrieved 2025-04-25.
  Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says, "The source's audience must also be considered. Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability." The motel received significant coverage in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which is the "the largest circulating daily newspaper in Nevada", so the audience requirement is met.
  The article notes: "In the 1950s, the Safari was part of the face of downtown Las Vegas, joining other area motels to lure tourists with its spacious rooms and rectangular neon-lit marquee. First opened in 1954, the motel was registered with Automobile Club of America, which vouched for its quality. Postcard advertisements boasted of “Beautiful, Carpeted 1-2 Bedroom Units. Smartly furnished for your comfort, with TV, Radio. Cooled by refrigeration, tiled tub and showers, heated swimming pool with large cabana & large shaded lawn area for lounging.” The Safari helped provide the allure to the East Fremont Street corridor, the city’s own version of old Route 66 and part of the original route to Los Angeles before Highway 91 — the precursor to Interstate 15 — was built in the mid-1920s."
  The article notes: "Meanwhile, they were summoned to the smaller 21-room Safari on 172 occasions — more than twice that of any other property, according to Metro. ... Police, fire and health departments and the city attorney are working to shutter the motel and perhaps seize the property. Two lawsuits filed in state and municipal courts label the Safari as a “chronic nuisance” — a haven for crime and hopeless rabbit hole for the time and energies of health and public safety officials. Authorities targeted the Safari soon after the drug-related slaying last April. They waged drug and prostitution operations, served search warrants and increased health inspections."
2. Johnson, Shea (2019-09-04). "Las Vegas will help convert troubled downtown motel to apartments". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-04-25. Retrieved 2025-04-25.
  The article notes: "Las Vegas officials will contribute $95,000 in redevelopment agency funds to convert a vacant downtown motel with a troubled recent history into a 21-unit apartment complex. ... The issues with Safari Motel before it ceased operations in May were well documented: violent crime, drug use and health violations. Since 2006, officials opened 11 code enforcement cases, according to the city. There have been three fires at the property in the last five years. The new owner, 2001 Fremont LLC, bought the old motel for $950,000 on May 31, Clark County property records show. The company then requested Las Vegas assist with the motel’s conversion to market rate apartments and agreed to renovate the historic neon “Safari” sign to its original condition, according to the city."
3. Torres-Cortez, Ricardo (2022-10-14). "Careworn Safari Motel gets new life as transitional housing". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-04-25. Retrieved 2025-04-25.
  The article notes: "The vintage Safari Motel in downtown Las Vegas has undergone various incarnations since it was first built nearly seven decades ago, when Clark County’s population hovered around 60,000. Long a tourist attraction, the relic of a bygone era has transformed into apartment living, been shuttered, caught fire multiple times and been labeled as a “chronic nuisance” where illegal activities abounded in recent years."
4. Pearson, Paul (2024-04-06). "Ex-motel gets new mission: Helping the homeless". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-04-25. Retrieved 2025-04-25.
  The article notes: "An old motel in downtown Las Vegas is getting a new lease on life. The former Safari Motel on East Fremont Street has been turned into bridge housing for people experiencing homelessness. A ribbon-cutting ceremony was held Thursday morning for the site, which has been rechristened as a BETterment Community through a public-private partnership between Clark County, the City of Las Vegas, private companies and the nonprofit U.S. Vets. ... Built in 1956, the Safari had fallen on hard times in recent years. After a maintenance man was fatally shot there in 2016, and Las Vegas police officers served four drug search warrants in early 2017, a judge allowed the city to close the motel in the fall of 2017."
5. Richards, Rochelle (2017-04-23). "Las Vegas morning update for Sunday, April 23rd – Video". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-04-25. Retrieved 2025-04-25.
  The article notes: "The Safari Motel, known as the most dangerous hotel in all of Las Vegas, used to be a popular tourist spot. Now it’s a crime trap the city wants to close down. According to Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, officers have been called to the 21-room Safari on 172 occasions since March 2016. Police, fire and health departments along with the city attorney are now working to shut down the motel, and perhaps seize the property."
6. Kane, Arthur (2020-06-11). "Police called Alpine the worst of the worst' and tried to close it. Las Vegas officials said no". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-04-25. Retrieved 2025-04-25.
  The article notes: "While the Alpine escaped closure as a chronic nuisance, around the same time and a mile away city officials were cracking down on the Safari Motel. A maintenance man was fatally shot there in April 2016, and Metro officers served drug search warrants on four different rooms in early 2017. ... A judge allowed the city to close the Safari in the fall of 2017. In May 2019, Yeh sold the property to an LLC based in Beverly Hills, California, for $950,000, records show."
7. Wilson, Miranda (2019-09-04). "Old downtown Las Vegas motel to be converted into apartments". Las Vegas Sun. Archived from the original on 2025-04-25. Retrieved 2025-04-25.
  The article notes: "A shuttered 1950s-era motel with a troubled history is the latest downtown property slated for redevelopment into apartments. Las Vegas Apartments LLC will convert the former Safari Motel on East Fremont Street into a 21-unit apartment complex with financial assistance from the city of Las Vegas. ... Built in 1956, the 25-unit Safari Motel had a notorious history in recent years. A man was stabbed in one of the rooms in 2016. A fire broke out in 2013, causing $25,000 in damage, displacing the manager and killing a dog. The city described it as a “blighted and crime-ridden property” in documents."
8. Miller, Shannon (2023-04-20). "Public-private partnerships transform an old Downtown motel into transitional housing". Las Vegas Weekly. Archived from the original on 2025-04-25. Retrieved 2025-04-25.
  The article notes: "On one of the first warm mornings this spring, Clark County officials hosted a ribbon cutting at the site of the former Safari Motel on Fremont Street—now a bridge housing complex that provides supportive services for 50 clients at a time, or up to 184 homeless adults per year. ... Since opening in late February, the complex has served more than 20 clients, according to staff. ... The renovated motel provides a unique Vegas vibe and includes wheelchair-accessible rooms, laundry machines and a spacious courtyard with a zen garden donated by the Venetian. Each room includes a bed, closet, bathroom and kitchen equipped with a refrigerator and appliances."
9. Jaramillo, Sally (2019-09-10). "Safari Motel to be transformed into modern apartment complex". KLAS-TV. Archived from the original on 2019-09-13. Retrieved 2025-04-25.
  The article notes: "“Project Enchilada:” It sounds like it has to do with Mexican food, but it’s actually the master plan that was adopted by the City of Las Vegas back in 2016. Project Enchilada aims to bring redevelopment to the Fremont East area. One of the projects involves the Safari Motel. The old downtown Las Vegas motel was built in 1956, but now it’s going to be converted into a 21 unit apartment complex thanks to approval from the Las Vegas City Council."
10. "Authorities close motel after numerous code violations found". Las Vegas Review-Journal. 1991-02-23. Factiva lvgs000020020430dn2n0031o.
  The article notes: " Las Vegas police and city health, building and fire inspectors shut down a Fremont Street motel Friday after finding numerous code violations.Police said they found 14 children among the residents living in squalid conditions at the Safari Motel at 2001 E. Fremont St. near 21st Street.Officers of the North Area Police Station's Community Policing Team said in one month there were about 45 calls for police to the motel, most of them dealing with narcotics and prostitution.For three hours Friday, police and city health, building and fire inspectors looked through the motel's 20 rooms. Police said they found open wires, unsafe floors, makeshift sinks, human feces in alleyways, soiled pillows and urine-stained mattresses with burn holes."
11. Less significant coverage:
  1. Cling, Carol (2000-03-06). "Wayne Newton pitches Miller Lite in commercial". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Factiva LVGS000020010808dw36003d8.
    The article notes: "Further east on Fremont Street, near the Safari Motel, is one of the planned locations for a series of 15-second TV commercials promoting the 2000 census in Southern Nevada. The spots are scheduled to shoot Thursday through Saturday at locations including the Desert Shores area an an area near Spring Mountain Road and Arville Street, according to Lynn Purdue, senior vice president of Puckett Advertising, which created the multimedia campaign to encourage participation in the 2000 census "and educate people about what the census is for.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Safari Motel to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Chaturvedi

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. The two Forbes India articles are mere puff pieces ([24] [25]), while the remaining sources provide only trivial coverage and do not demonstrate notability. Yuvaank (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Delhi. Yuvaank (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Procyon117 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. Lacks Wp:SIGCOV. Zuck28 (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Forbes articles are not puff pieces, at least not entirely. This is how Forbes typically presents success stories. They were written by the editorial team and offer fairly in-depth coverage of the subject.

The subject has also been featured multiple times in Forbes' 30 Under 30 lists, both nationally and in the Asia edition.

The article on Outlook Business, Career Confidant, offers significant coverage.

Two independent and significant sources are often sufficient to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC.

Additionally, the subject is a fellow at St George's House (Windsor Castle) and was selected for the Champions of Change award, a prestigious recognition in areas like Education, Healthcare, and Science. Altogether, the subject meets both WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Monhiroe (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This individual has been covered by independent and reliable media with sufficient depth to meet WP:NBASIC in Forbes and Outlook Business. This Entrepreneur article[26] can also be used to support the content. While some company-focused sources can be trimmed, more sources specifically about him could be added from google to improve balance.Chekidalum (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom, Fails WP:ANYBIO. Forbes 30 Under 30 is paid. AndySailz (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about Champions of Change, for which he was selected based on his contributions to the education sector? Is that also paid? I am not sure why you are thinking like that, but Forbes 30 Under 30 selections are reviewed by a team of Forbes editors, along with industry experts and independent judges. It is not a pay-to-play listing. I would suggest you kindly refer to the Forbes 30 Under 30 Wikipedia page itself, where the process has been clearly explained.Chekidalum (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a second thought and per comments above i am changing my vote to keep. AndySailz (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very well written with great format but it is a total promotion. Thus, unreliable as per WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:COI, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RELIABILITY.HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have edited the page to make it more neutral, per WP:NPOV. Nothing is unsourced or unverifiable.Chekidalum (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject itself has no reliable coverage in any independent sources as I have replied below to another voter here as well, check them and reply there if any need arises, ~~Delete~~. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page reads as promotional. Fails WP:ANYBIO. RangersRus (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Monhiroe and the sources provided above, the sources are reliable and provide significant coverage sufficient to establish notability. I'm not sure what HilssaMansen19 is trying to convey in their comment. If they are suggesting that the sources cited in the article are unreliable, I don't agree. Most of the outlets are secondary and considered reliable by Wikipedia standards.

I also don't agree that there are any verifiability issues. The article is neutral and thoroughly cited. If any unsourced information remains, it can be removed through normal editing processes. B-Factor (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It is very obvious as some guidelines of Wikipedia are -

Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article.

Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received.

Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement, press releases, branding campaigns, advertisements, and paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article.

No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

as clearly mentioned in policies including WP:Notability.

The article was in a great format and style meeting needed criterias but not the subject. Majority of the sources are from Forbes and Inc42. Majority of them are not independent or even reliable coverage to meet notability.

Sources like this [27] don't even mention the subject in one single line. Rather than mentioning every other voter here, read the guidelines and then, compare the article against their requirements. You cannot argue about promotional tone which implies COI by the creator and insignificant independent coverage further making it questionable. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more guideline-

Sponsored content is a paid advertisement that is formatted to look like an article or other piece of typical content for that outlet. The content may be directly controlled by the sponsor, or the advertiser may pay an author to create the content (e.g., influencer marketing). Advertisements can be cited, but they are non-independent and should be treated as self-published and primary sources in articles. Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article. Sources that do not clearly distinguish staff-written articles from sponsored content are also questionable.

Some of the sources (apart from sponsored/interviews of Forbes or others) are about the product by the subject but not about the subject itself.

Therefore, an article originally written as a promotional article with no secondary reliable sources is not suitable through any of the policies. You can check the sources yourself and evaluate them as per the guidelines.

HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~

HilssaMansen19 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out your other two votes as each user is allowed to cast only one !vote in an AfD discussion. You're welcome to elaborate on your reasoning in follow-up comments but only the first !vote is considered. Thanks! Chanel Dsouza (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Out of the 17 sources, at least 5-6 are completely company-focused, where the subject of the article is only briefly mentioned. I have thoroughly searched through search engines, and the two best sources about this individual are Forbes and Outlook Business, which fellow editors have already posted in the comments above. Apart from these, all other sources do not substantially cover the individual. The Forbes and Outlook Business articles do not appear to be paid content. The Forbes article includes adequate independent coverage. These sources are credible enough to satisfy WP:GNG. As for the Champions of Change award, it is indeed a significant recognition. This award has been used in many Wikipedia articles for notable Indian sportspeople, actors, and other notable individuals. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above, passes both WP:GNG & WP:NBIO. Frank Ken (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IFIP Working Group 2.10

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Engineering, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSOFT Iban14mxl (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any non-template opinions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-entirely promotional article, fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a notable subject, and a badly written article. We don't have to make a page for every random committee in every random international org with minimal to no authority.AnonymousScholar49 (talk)AnonymousScholar49

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.

AliensFest

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

Not convinced that this student conference is notable. As far as I can see the Indian news sources references are mostly PR churn JMWt (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and India. JMWt (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article appears relatively under sourced for its size, and the conference’s yearly attendance is only on average a couple thousand people. Also appears to be hardly notable outside of local media.

IiSmxyzXX (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia

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

Bringing to AFD following discussion at what Wikipedia is Not regarding this page being a violation WP:NOTGUIDE. Proposal is to either selectively merge content from this page into the main Huntington, West Virginia page and ~~delete~~ redirect this one, or remove the travel guide fluff and move this article to a new page entitled "List of parks in Huntington, West Virginia". nf utvol (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, Sports, and West Virginia. nf utvol (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you WP:MERGE content from one article into another, then we can't WP:DELETE the original, due to license requirements. So I think your proposal needs to be choosing between merge-and-redirect vs stripping it down to a list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, didn't think about the license aspect here. Modified accordingly. nf utvol (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikivoyage. It would be a pity to lose this material, but it clearly doesn't belong in WP. — hike395 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a note at voy:en:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Re-direct Keep the referenced stuff, just de-fluff and merge into the main article and then redirect.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support both proposed merge' content to Huntington and delete this article as proposed or alternate proposal of reducing this article down to a bare-bones list of parks (which are tolerated for several cities). Keeping the referenced stuff won't work because a lot of that material is still classic travel guide material. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean merge and redirect or reduce, I hope, as merging requires saving the article history for attribution (unless you copy the list of contributors, which is cumbersome and less useful). I did link the version that was current at time of nomination from voy:Talk:Huntington (West Virginia), so that anybody working at that article on Wikivoyage can merge in useful parts as appropriate. –LPfi (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ExitMundi.nl

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

Apparently defunct website. After a prod almost twenty years ago, a bit of uncited and unsourced content was slapped on carelessly, with some evidence of COI or at least NPOV violation. I am inclined to say that notability was never established. Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- somewhat confused by this nomination: four reliable news sources are cited, even though one is a 404. That establishes clear notability by the GNG -- it is irrelevant whether the website is now defunct. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose deletion, but I actually think it would be best if this would be part of an article about Maarten Keulemans (which is now a redirect). Maarten Keulemans has become sufficiently notable since the article about ExitMundi.nl was written. Dajasj (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as FRINGE failing the GNG. Maybe Maarten Keulemans passes the GNG. He had the stories of this website bundled into a book, regardless won a prize, and did other stuff. I can't say for sure until I see it. gidonb (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not FRINGE in the Wikipedia sense, which warns against undue weight in articles not about the "fringe" topic – there can't be undue weight on the subject of the article. Also, as far as I can tell, this site/book/project was supposed to be art or entertainment, not a genuine doomsday cult. Toadspike [Talk] 14:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, the text in sources 2 and 3 is about as long as the text of the nomination above, both brief. The other two don't open, so that's no help. The website is mentioned twice in trivial mentions in Gbooks, this for example [28]. We don't have anything extensive, I don't think these are enough to use for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the last snapshots was in 2023 from the Wayback Machine [29], I'm not even sure we'd consider it a reliable source RS for use here, not sure how that affects notability, but it would be classified as a blog today. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting AfD per request from User:Toadspike,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This review [30] is sigcov of a reading of this work by a German performer. Similar reviews here [31] and an article from the same paper (Der Bund) around the same time titled "Weltuntergangsschlagzeuger Bela B." by Gisela Feuz that I can't find online, but is in my newspaper database. This source [32] seems to have a paragraph of analysis of this subject at the end. There is a little bit in [33]. I'm not 100% certain here, but the coverage of this subject's various iterations (website, book, live performance) seem to add up to meet the GNG. If we don't keep this, I suggest redirecting to Bela B., where the subject is mentioned under "Acting and other ventures". Toadspike [Talk] 19:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toadspike. Obscure and odd but seemingly notable website. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cassidy (musician)

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

No apparent notability outside of the band Antigone Rising. The majority of the page is unsourced solo work. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, California, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There are bunch of independent sources on her with SIGCOV, but not all of them may be reliable. This, this, and this for SIGCOV. And these ones for individual claims: [34] and [35]. Only searched Google news. LastJabberwocky (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep while this article has enough sources to meet WP:BASIC, it's in desparate need of a re-write to remove promotional language and non-cited/non-verifiable content. Nnev66 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, this subject does not seem notable on her own, but maybe as part of Antigone Rising as an AtD. like so. I can't see any reliably sourced information here, but if there is it can be merged. Jdcooper (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV in this article: The Seattle Times (2005) and New Jersey Herald (2017). There are other RS's that have only a paragraph or few sentences that I believe also contribute to notability. I acknowledge it's a close call but there is reliably sourced information in the article. Nnev66 (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The Seattle Times article is about Antigone Rising again, and the NJ Herald is a fluffy interview piece about a local musician which includes the text: "Arguably, Cassidy's biggest moment of fame so far came in the early- to mid-2000s when she was doing 250 shows a year with Antigone Rising." I still don't see any sigcov, or indeed notability, outside the band. Jdcooper (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct that this person has had "no apparent notability outside of the band Antigone Rising," and there is a reliably-sourced information here. Specific concerns should be listed and the opportunity for added citations and/or editing should be allowed. Whiplashmash (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Mayfield

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

Sources for this technology entrepreneur are a mile wide and an inch deep. BD2412 T 18:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Estonia, and California. BD2412 T 18:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, page was a bit messy but clearly gen. notable, particularly during the 2002-2012 era spanning most of the cites. I cleaned it up to make this obvious: repeated coverage in trade and national press, recognition for role in popularizing wikis, multiple successful companies. I happen to have created the page in the stone age as a stub which is why I was notified, but had not edited it since. – SJ + 21:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not super-convinced. He still seems like a run-of-the-mill serial entrepreneur who had a few lucky strikes. BD2412 T 22:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator and other user who voted for deletion. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aghamohammad Garden House

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

Completely and utterly fails the notability requirement for places (Wikipedia:Notability (places)). Almost no info about it anywhere under the name listed on Wikipedia. Removing the word garden gets some more sites, but still no outside coverage by any notable sites. The whole article is also blatantly promotional. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Geography, and Iran. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, bad article.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)AnonymousScholar49[reply]
Delete, no referencing --Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. Procyon117 (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no RSes, for all we know this could all be made up. If sufficient sources can be provided that is a different story. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. Clearly fails WP:GNG. WikiMentor01 (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serupepeli Naqase

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

Does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. There also aren't any citations. Specifically, WP:Notability and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Fiji. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see any indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable at all . Delete it. WikiMentor01 (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Austin (filmmaker)

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

WP:BLP of a cinematographer, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for cinematographers. As always, cinematographers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they and their work exist -- the notability test is the reception of third-party attention being paid to their work by reliable sources, such as notability-making awards and/or analysis about their work by professional film critics. But this just states that he exists without showing any notability-building distinctions, and is referenced entirely to a glancing namecheck of his existence in one smalltown newspaper article that isn't about him in any non-trivial sense, which is not enough "coverage" to single-handedly get him over WP:GNG all by itself — and the article has been tagged for referencing problems since 2012 without ever having any new referencing added.
There are also WP:COI issues here, as the article's primary editor throughout its history has been "Jaustin5017" -- and while that isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself, it does suggest that the primary intent here was advertorial self-promotion. (As well, within the past couple of days an editor with a different username been trying to blank this down to "Jonathan Austin is an artist who exists, the end". I don't have enough information to determine whether it's the cinematographer trying to erase himself, or a different person with the same name trying to hijack the article, but either way artists don't automatically get articles just for existing either, and still have to be reliably sourced as passing inclusion criteria too.)
Regardless, nothing stated in this article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim than just existing, and better referencing than just a brief mention of his name in one smalltown newspaper article. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Maryland, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThere is nothing much in the article which meets notability of the subject. Even in google search unable to find significant coverage which is independent. As rightly pointed by Bearcat (talk) this cinematographer can not be inherently notable. Possible COI exist. WikiMentor01 (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Nazi Party (disambiguation)

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

None of these groups, barring the American Nazi Party, are actually called this. This is just a list of groups that someone could incorrectly call an American Nazi Party. There are a few other groups that claim the original ANP name but we don't have articles for any of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Somajyoti ✉ 17:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Yes, these are groups that many people could incorrectly call the American Nazi Party, what with all the swastikas. That is why it's a disambig. Also your nom partially violates WP:OTHERCONTENT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonymousScholar49 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- We don't keep a disamb when it's purely based on people remembering stuff wrong. This name is not reflected in any sourcing, by that logic we may as well make this a list of all the hundreds and hundreds of racist parties that have at one time existed in the United States... when none of these groups are called this in any capacity. The title is not ambiguous, it can only refer to Rockwell's party. And no, it doesn't, I didn't even compare this to any other content. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of these organisations actually have this name, and the only one that ever did is the main topic anyway. Little to no need for a disambig page. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not to be confused with the American Nutso Party (although they do share many of the same beliefs). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If there is room for confusion then American Nazi Party could be linked somewhere in those articles. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Hawksworth

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

This Canadian-American sportscaster does not have enough significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG. She worked in a lot of markets (after WJLA, she stayed in radio in Washington and then went to BetQL), but the only article that was more than cursory was from the North Shore Outlook (hometown paper). I was left wanting when I searched for sources. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, Sports, and Canada. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Arizona, and Washington, D.C.. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete like the nom I couldn't find any sources for the page that weren't primary and the sourcing already in the article isn't much better that said if someone can find a reliable source I may switch my vote Scooby453w (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV either in the article or elsewhere. I checked google and newspapers.com and didn't come up with anything significant that wasn't primary. Let'srun (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can't find any coverage either that would satisfy WP:BASIC. A WaPo article of subject joining WJLA as a sports anchor from CNN is all I could find that had some coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. per WP:SK#2 (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tibira do Maranhão

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

There's essentially no good sourcing for the existence of this individual, it's basically an entirely speculative story and indeed a name entirely made up based on dubious etymology. Golikom (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Sexuality and gender, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are dozens of news sources[36] and scholarly sources[37] mentioning them. Here's the BBC devoting an article to the topic, noting that an archbishops have sought to have Tibira canonized[38] and here's a magazine from Harvard noting the city put up a statue to him[39].

There are more than enough RS covering this individual and you arguing it is "an entirely speculative story" does not change that. That the name is admittedly based on dubious etymology does not change that it is in fact the WP:COMMONNAME. There is no real argument for deletion here. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MikutoH, Skyshifter, LIrala, and Schazjmd: RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Firstly, the disruptive nature of this AfD is evident, having been opened after the nominator was rightly reverted for edit warring in an attempt to prove their point of view. Secondly, the opinion that it is mere speculation is irrelevant here. There are dozens of reliable sources, and this alone is sufficient to keep the article. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep nonsensical and disruptive AfD. Skyshiftertalk 13:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dale Ahlquist

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

Subject does not seem to meet any of the qualifications in WP:ACADEMIC. Perhaps meets WP:BASIC but I don't think so; he has been interviewed as an expert on G.K. Chesterton, but that's not really significant coverage on Ahlquist himself.

Additionally, article was created by User:AmChestertonSoc, likely undisclosed paid editing; article overall is written like a WP:RESUME or WP:PROMOTION, and relies on primary sourcing. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Minnesota. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is going to pass WP:Author. There's also some extensive (negative) writing about him[40] Jahaza (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on that article - I'm not sure why that didn't pop up in my Google News search. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Member of Service

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article just gives a definition of a particular term in the jargon of emergency responders and a few examples of when this term might be used. I don't see opportunities for this article to become substantially more than a definition. —Bkell (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was previously proposed for deletion in 2013 with the rationale "Non-notable dictionary definition" [41]; the PROD tag was removed with the comment "expandable into more than a dicdef" [42]. —Bkell (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Kochanová

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

Unable to uncover significant coverage of this individual from multiple independent sources. Results from searches generally yield results with little to no more detail than a name, such as [43] and [44]. C 679 15:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Slovakia. C 679 15:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best I can find is this Q&A but it contains very little independent content and is from her tennis association, so not independent Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox version history

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTCHANGELOG; almost no links to secondary sources. Information about releases which actually got coverage in secondary sources should be moved to the main Firefox article.

Also it's just a burden in general to maintain such constantly updated abominations, and that's exactly because they're constantly updated. MinervaNeue (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that sort of run-along-after-the-fact cataloguing is pretty much a textbook version of what Wikipedia is not. There is no point our doing an organisation's job for it, nor is the matter of any encyclopedic interest. The existing Firefox article is quite sufficient as a home for any reliable secondary-sourced material about the tool. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do it yourself then. Icaneditalot42 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up someone else's trash isn't and shouldn't be my responsibility. MinervaNeue (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I have no opinion on this article/list, I did want to point out that it mostly only covers post-2011 versions, as everything before that was split into a Firefox early version history in 2019. That one obviously does not need as frequent updates as a list that is intended to contain more current information, but some of the other "not a change log" issues may apply, so a discussion for that article may also be warranted (not necessarily bundled into this one; in any event, I have no opinion on that one either). (The existence of the other page briefly came up in this article's second nomination—the first nomination predated its creation—but so far as I can tell it has never been nominated for deletion in any form itself.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the article I nominated, the one you mentioned doesn't need to be updated constantly, so I think it's fine. Though it written in prose and covering only major releases (and I'm sure there are secondary sources for all major releases of Firefox before 5.0) would be better than using tables and listing every single hotfix in them, because that would comply with WP:NOTCHANGELOG. MinervaNeue (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we deleted this that one would make no sense, so surely we would have to delete it too. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be rewritten to be a rules-compliat version history article in a reasonable amount of time, unlike the one we're currently discussing. Therefore I don't see any point in deleting it. MinervaNeue (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we have an "early" version history without a version history article? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"i don't hate the other trash so it could stay, get rid of this thing I like"

Wonder if this came from jealousy that Firefox article got chronological history instead of cluttered mess that is Chrome history Hyoroemon2 (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firefox early version history isn't "trash". MinervaNeue (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" almost no links to secondary sources"

Release date is a fact.

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Hyoroemon2 (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about verifiaibility at all. If there are almost no links to secondary sources, the article is not notable. That doesn't mean it's not verifiable. MinervaNeue (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bludgeoning please. Also, your wants make no sense. why keep the article about web browsers that are barely usable anymore and no one is likely to need to care about while the more recent versions need to be deleted? Icaneditalot42 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTCHANGELOG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I use this article often and would miss it. It is a nice source for retro computing and having the information what changed when. 2003:F1:CF01:1F00:8C22:46F0:894D:D5D9 (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness isn't an argument for keeping an article. MinervaNeue (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that is the case, then the template chart in the Template:Timeline Mozilla Firefox is getting squeezed and crunched up with each new year until there's no room for it. I would suggest trying to remove the template altogether. Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trebava offensive

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

Contested prod, without improvement or explanation. Appears to be WP:SYNTH. Neither of the sources in the piece mention a Trebava offensive. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. A search for a "Trebava offensive" in books, news, scholar all yield nothing. PadFoot (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the September 11 attacks (H–N)

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

Fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL and is just a indiscriminate list of victims. E_F⁵ 15:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment EF5, any particular reason you're only nominating H-N and not the two other lists on the same subject? Departure– (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Departure–, I'm not sure how to do that. — E_F⁵ 16:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BUNDLE has instructions on exactly this. Though, I'm less than sure how it'll go now that a discussion has begun - perhaps withdraw for now and make your bundled nomination? Departure– (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, regardless of the specific 9/11 list being nominated, per last AfD discussion. Nothing much has changed. The list clearly passes NLIST. People always say NOTMEMORIAL when it doesn't apply, but that only applies when the topic itself isn't notable and people add it anyway. If the topic is notable, all NOTMEMORIAL says is:

Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements

The notability requirement for the list is satisfied, as shown extensively in the last AfD, so notmemorial becomes moot.

As for INDISCRIMINATE, that guideline says an article should not be summary only descriptions of works, lyrics databases, exhaustive logs of software updates, or unexplained statistics. The first three clearly do not apply, and I don't think the fourth one does because you could make a clear lead about a list of the 9/11 victims and what these people have in common is clearly explained. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this was made in response to the nominator's article of a similar kind getting AfD'd, and while I really do understand the frustration of what is seen as inconsistent enforcement, I do think there is a difference here in the quality of the sourcing per NLIST which is much more clearly evidenced here. The sourcing on 9/11 victims as a group is comparatively much much more significant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA, indeed it was. I saw that going under and immediately this article came to mind. Please do keep in mind WP:FOC, though. — E_F⁵ 17:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Terrorism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous AfD was closed as Keep, which I think was a mistake. The debate was pretty evenly divided; at best, it was a "No consensus," not "Keep." Angryapathy (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for now, as I think all three of the "victims" articles should be discussed together. As to concerns mentioned above, it should be noted that the previous AfD for this topic resulted in a pretty clear consensus that the topic meets WP:LISTN; while numerically there were 11 delete !votes and 16 keep !votes, it seems like the LISTN arguments were more persuasive to the closing admin per WP:NOTVOTE.
However, I'll reiterate what I said in the previous AfD. This list (and the other two) should probably be merged, and trimmed to link only to notable people. Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL (in the literal sense - the National September 11 Memorial & Museum is literally a memorial and we don't need to copy every name from the 9/11 Memorial), we shouldn't list all the non-notable people who died here. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AFD, where nom's points were thoroughly rejected, and procedural keep as a partial nomination out of context. Can we please AfD a little less and concentrate more on the article space? I hold that I can support both keep and procedural keep as both routes are applicable and lead to the same outcome. gidonb (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides the procedural-ness, not seeing a compelling argument that wasn't already shot down in the previous AfD. Not memorial doesn't apply here as the list is notable. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 06:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somajyoti ✉ 07:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Boy Gang

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

Fails WP:GNG. Poorly sourced articles whose only source are from websites that arent reliable. TzarN64 (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per WP:A7. DBrown SPS (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Deletion is indefensible under Wikipedia policy. Fly Boy Gang meets notability and sourcing requirements by a landslide, satisfying WP:GNG; WP:SIGCOV; WP:RS; WP:INDEP; WP:BAND; WP:NORG:

Annenberg School for Communication (academic) (source): "Neighborhood GD splinter group known as Fly Boy Gang (FBG) or St. Lawrence (STL) Boys—the former refers to their rap music group, the latter to STL Street, which runs directly through the Woodlawn neighborhood."

Peer-reviewed research confirming origin, structure, and cultural context.

Deadline (national entertainment) (source): "Chicago’s Fly Boy Gang [FBG], also called the Clout Boyz or 'Tooka Gang.' It features fellow rappers Lil Jay, Wooski, Billionaire Black, Young Mello, FBG Dutchie and the late FBG Duck, who was killed in 2020."

Major industry outlet providing in-depth coverage of membership and significance.

XXL (music press) (source): "FBG Duck started his hip-hop crew, Fly Boy Gang, when he was 17."

Authoritative confirmation of the founding year (2010) from a leading hip-hop magazine.

Chicago Sun-Times (local newspaper) (source): "'FBG' is an acronym for 'Fly Boy Gang,' a group known for its high-profile feuds with Chief Keef and Edai and its release of a number of songs dissing the rival rappers."

Chicago’s largest newspaper detailing the group’s activities and feuds.

ABC7 Chicago (broadcast) (source): Coverage of FBG Duck’s death explicitly naming Fly Boy Gang and situating it within the drill music scene.

Mainstream local TV news, widely regarded as reliable.

Block Club Chicago (independent local) (source): "Fly Boy Gang, a Chicago drill rap group formed on the South Side that included FBG Cash, FBG Duck, and other rappers."

Non-profit news outlet providing significant, focused coverage.

These independent, high-quality sources demonstrate sustained, substantial coverage (WP:SIGCOV) of Fly Boy Gang’s formation, membership, cultural impact, and controversies. There is no credible basis under WP:GNG or any other deletion guideline to remove this article. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the 2011 Super Outbreak

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

While the outbreak is very notable, this article was initially denied at AfC based on WP:NOTMEMORIAL and was later published into the mainspace anyway. The article contains several errors (such as stating the Hackleburg tornado killed 72 people but only listing 70), and the table at the top does not add up to the correct number of people killed on the correct dates. The top table also does not seem to jive with the list of fatalities below it in regards to the date. The table also lists numerous Jane and John Doe's, implying that those people are unknown. In fact, those people are known, but likely do not have names published online in an easily found place. I believe an alternative to outright deletion could be to condense this into a section at 2011 Super Outbreak or to break the names (provided the information is correct) into separate tables in their respective tornado's section at 2011 Super Outbreak. United States Man (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOTMEMORIAL only applies to non-notable casualty lists, which isn’t the case here. Other than that, nothing said warrants deletion. Instead of immediately sending it to AfD, be bold and fix it. E_F⁵ 23:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have a computer, an in-depth reasoning:
1. The Teahouse decline is moot since I published it after another experienced user told me it was fine.
2. NOTMEMORIAL only applies to deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. Note that every person on the list has had some form of coverage, and as such does not fall under NOTMEMORIAL.
3. This is far from a WP:TNT situation needing the deletion of a large list. Slap a {{cleanup|reason=Missing people in the list}} tag instead of immediately taking it to AfD, or you can one-up that and actually fix the issue.
4. The table also lists numerous Jane and John Doe's, implying that those people are unknown and he table at the top does not add up to the correct number of people killed on the correct dates aren't policy-based and don't hold weight. — E_F⁵ 12:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a pretty cut and dry case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL as well as WP:NOTDATABASE (I read the above arguments about this not being a case of NOTMEMORIAL, but I'm unconvinced). I understand that they can all be sourced, but the vast, vast majority of this list is simply a reprint of two news articles listing the names of the deceased. I suppose you could make an argument that these could be broken out into sections on the individual tornado pages. nf utvol (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is not encyclopedic. There are many, many, many catastrophes in the world. And Wikipedia isn't the place to memorialize everyone. Angryapathy (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, while the wording of NOTMEMORIAL might not exactly match this, I think the intent does. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is sad, but unfortunately it falls under the NOTMEMORIAL clause of "others who do not meet such [notability] requirements". Geschichte (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, strong merge per all above. I like the nominator's alternative of having this be a section on 2011 Super Outbreak over straight-up removal from the site. Departure– (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weitz & Luxenberg P.C.

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

I don't see independent significant coverage outside of a scandal (and even that is largely tabloid sources like New York Post). According to the talk page, this article is the product of a UPE sock farm to highlight negative aspects of law firms they have issues with Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, United States of America, and New York. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose a deletion, although a redirect to Sheldon Silver, who was of counsel to the firm, is reasonable and appropriate. The article as written is irredeemable. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable law firm that's only notable because of Sheldon Silver's involvement in the firm. The sources mention the firm, but the firm is never the subject of the article. Angryapathy (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a good candidate for a Wikipedia:Blank and redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 15:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sewanee Tigers starting quarterbacks

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

This grouping does not have the necessary coverage to meet WP:LISTN due to a lack of coverage in reliable sources. PROD was removed by article creator with the reasoning that other schools have similar pages but that is effectively WP:OSE. Let'srun (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, American football, Lists, and Tennessee. Let'srun (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selective merge to Sewanee Tigers football It's a Division III team, while every other college team with a quarterback list is a major D1 team. We really should not have separate pages for every conceivable list of non-notable players (and it appears several of those with articles here like Walter Barrett should also be deleted as non-notable players who did not play professionally and lack significant coverage). Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sewanee today is D3, but was a major D1 school from the 1890s until the 1930s. The Sewanee-Vanderbilt rivalry was the oldest in the South, and Sewanee also had a rivalry with Auburn, and were part of the original Southeastern Conference. Perhaps the best analogy is Tulane. If the list only was for post-WW2 or something, I would agree on its removal, but this is an all-time list. Sewanee has 3 (D1) Hall of Famers: Henry D. Phillips, Diddy Seibels, and Frank Juhan. Ormond Simkins should have been a fourth. Barrett was All-Southern, i. e. according to some (Heisman and Donahue) the best QB in the South, for a Sewanee team that suffered a single loss, in its rivalry game thanks to the greatest play Grantland Rice saw in his life. Easily a handful of notable QBs, which seems to justify a navbox. Cake (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I get that Sewanee was a D1 school until the 1930s, but the content of this list has a whole raft of problems with WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:NCOLLATH. nf utvol (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this list lacks reliable sources. Catfurball (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A commendable attempt, but there doesn't seem to be the necessary coverage for a standalone article here. JTtheOG (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Leigh Academy Blackheath

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article on a school, and added another piece of local news coverage about its establishment. I can find very little non-primary coverage, however, and don't think it meets WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. It was established in 2018, so it may be WP:TOOSOON for it to have demonstrated notability.

Redirect to its multi-academy trust, Leigh Academies Trust, is a possibility, but I didn't want to go ahead and do this without consulting the community, partly because the Leigh Academy Blackheath article is well-developed for what sources there are, and partly because I'm not entirely convinced that the trust itself is notable (mostly primary sources or local coverage in that article too) - so didn't want to redirect from one article with weak notability to another. Tacyarg (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leigh Academies Trust. I agree with the nom. that I am not seeing what makes this a notable school. There is a reasonable amount of information on the page, although this is largely just put together from primary sources regarding or reporting its construction. That information could be pared back a bit, but actually would be useful in this article were the school shown to be notable for some other reason. It is a new school, and there is good reason to believe the situation will change at some point, so I would be unhappy with a result that saw the page history hidden by deletion, but the redirect will preserve what is here until such a time as notability is established. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, as with all secondary schools in the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources meet GNG? (that is, they are independent, reliable and secondary, with significant coverage)? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG because the topic has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The articles from Greenwich Wire, News Shopper, and Charlton Champion, which are cited in the WP Leigh Academy Blackheath article, are all WP:IS and WP:RS. - tucoxn\^talk 18:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article does not pass WP:GNG and certainly does not pass WP:ORG for which the sources must meet WP:ORGDEPTH, which says
Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
So the general observation I have, before getting into a review of the sources, is that, per the above, we need sources that talk about the notability of the school as an organisation, and not simply sources that describe the process of erecting a building. As all the sources suggested are simply about building the school, we clearly fall short of NORG, and we also fall short of GNG. My review:

Greenwich Wire [45] - News report of Plans to open new school buildings in Blackheath hit by the coronavirus. Per WP:PRIMARYNEWS this is news reporting, a primary source. It is local news, and run of the mill reporting. N
Newsshopper. There are three articles. All articles from one outlet should be treated together as a single source for notability purposes (that is, even if all three meet IRS SIGCOV, then we only have one source, and if just one does, we have one source). The first (Dempsey, 2017)[46] is an announcement of the principal for the new school All News Shopper articles are local news, and there is no SIGCOV of the school. The source is primary news reporting. N The other two sources (Bull, 2018a)[47] and (Bull, 2018b)[48] are about the submission fo plans for the school building and subsequent approval. Primary news reporting in a local paper. Some information about the proposed size of the school, but again, it is primary. Reporting the submission of a planning application does not make a building notable.N
Charlton Champion [49] has the same author as two of the Newsshopper pieces, and is similarly primary sourced local news simply about the green light to go ahead and build the school. N

I asked above if we have secondary sources that show notability of the school. I haven't found any. This is likely to be because the school is new and ordinary. I would expect and hope teh situation would change in the future, but we are not there yet. To preserve the page history until such a time as it becomes notable, I continue to propose we redirect the page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG does not supersede WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did I say it does. I said it does not pass either GNG or WP:ORG, and my comments on WP:ORG were relevant to the unevidenced claim that this passes WP:ORG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the trust. Coverage is entirely routine announcements about its construction and other ROTM material that is not sufficient for NORG (which just describes how GNG should be evaluated for organizations, e.g. stricter attention to independence). JoelleJay (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. The "keep" !voter has shifted to "draftify" since the last relisting, resulting in a consensus, and the page creator appears open to submitting through AfC. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarismcheck.org

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

This is a bit better than the version in draft that I speedied (and I suspect there's admins who'd push the button if I slapped a {{db-g11}} on it again) but I can't find any evidence it meets our inclusion guidelines. First ref has no mention of the subject at all; second is a two-sentence passing mention that says the author doesn't know a thing about it; fourth isn't on the web but predates the site by six years; fifth also isn't on the web but is a doctoral dissertation. The third, from Strategy First International College (which doesn't seem to have an English web presence to speak of outside of YouTube), is the closest to usable, but it's still shallow. I can't find anything better - a lot of blog posts and trivial feature comparisons and a strong impression of a recent astroturfing campaign, which this article is probably part of. —Cryptic 19:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I found the following two academic articles, both published in peer-reviewed education journals, which analyze the efficacy of the plagiarism checker relatively in detail: 1 2. Agree with nominator that many of the news sources are blog post-esque, "list of best plagiarism checker" type articles which are not allowed per WP:NCORP but I think these two articles together are sufficient. The article does need work though, as it currently comes across quite promotional, so I could also be sympathetic to draftifying it until someone can rework it. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 20:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so I could also be sympathetic to draftifying it until someone can rework it. - excuse me, what do you mean by that? "sympathetic to draftifying" Robbydillallo (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Pichpich. Changing my vote. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 18:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning draftify. I don't think the article in its current form is acceptable, but the two academic articles found by @Flipandflopped just above may be enough to write a more concise article on Plagiarismcheck.org. However, it needs a fundamental rewrite and a closer look at the two academic articles to make sure that they review the product in a way that can be integrated into an article. Pichpich (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify I declined this article in the AfC queue a week ago before it was g11'd. Little improvement have been made in terms of sourcing and promotional tone. The creator of this article (@Robbydillallo) moved the draft into mainspace without review and had not responded to COI inquiries on their talk page, raising questions about WP:UPE. The one of the academic articles FlipandFlopped cied test 14 different tools, and give little information about this tool in detail. The other is more subtantial, but still only gives minimal coverage.

Ironically, for an academic honesty tool, this article seems to be written with a help of an AI. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! These are great advice, well I have tried to make it better. The studies i have mentioned are quite about the subject. I am also sad that you mention that I used AI. This is not honest. That is why such tools as Plagiarismcheck and Integrito are important. I will rewrite according to your comments, please, don't delete it. I will submit for review too. I was confised about moving it to mainspace Robbydillallo (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how do I move the draft to review? do I press Publish changes? Robbydillallo (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone else see draftify as the preferred outcome here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalypso Nicolaïdis

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

She ought to be notable but a BEFORE search is only returning material BY her, not ABOUT her. Tagged for a lack of sources for 8 years already. Cabayi (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, France, and Greece. Cabayi (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's well-known in my discipline of International Relations, and her works have over 10,000 citations on Scholar. I would say it's not uncommon that academics have plenty of output and notability in their field without much coverage about them as a person. Completely agree that the article needs more sourcing, of course - but that feels like a better avenue than deletion.

— Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 22:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think her citation record is good enough for WP:PROF#C1, but I also found quite a few published reviews, of one coauthored book (The Greco-German Affair in the Euro Crisis, [50]) and several co-edited volumes (The Greek Paradox, [51], [52]; European Stories, [53], [54], [55]; The Federal Vision, [56], [57]; Echoes of Empire, [58], [59]; Strategic Trends in Services, [60]; In the Long Shadow of Europe, [61]). Because they are mostly not authored books I think this only makes a weak case for WP:AUTHOR but there are enough of them to make the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article violate copy right rules. https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Kalypso+Nicola%C3%AFdis&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Citations look to meet WP:NPROF C1; reviews of edited volume further support impact for this criterion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Now apparently covered in Arab tribal insurgency in Eastern Syria. Sandstein 15:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Diban clashes

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant clashes article, which doesn't have content that can be expanded. Can be merged to Rojava–Islamist conflict. Ecrusized (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support since this article looks to just be about a rather small skirmish between some tribal gunmen and the SDF, but I think its info should be merged into the Eastern Syria Insurgency article instead; the article on them doesn't mention them as being explicitly Islamist, and they're already in the article's infobox. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me it should be linked with Deir ez-Zor clashes (2023) because they were not only in 2023 but also in 2024 because Eastern Syria Insurgency is only for rebels, ISIS and Baathist remnants against the Syrian democratic forces. 2800:200:F4D0:97B:EC4D:94C4:86A5:E42B (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the 2023 Deir ez-Zor clashes looks like it's about a specific wave of clashes against the SDF in August and September 2023, so idk if the Diban Clashes' info should be moved there. However, you are right in that the Eastern Syria Insurgency article doesn't focus on the tribal militia. Maybe there could be a new article created specifically about tribal militias attacking the SDF (e.g. Tribal Insurgency in Eastern Syria), and the Diban Clashes' info could be merged there? Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better, because there are many waves of attacks from the Tribal forces and an article where they are all combined is good. Farcazo (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create a Draft (Draft:Arab Tribal insurgency in Eastern Syria) if you want you can help move things from here to there and add Farcazo (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Farcazo's idea of making an article for Arab tribes attacking the SDF in eastern Syria would be a suitable decision, and the info from this article could just be moved there. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's finished, could I delete the page first and then upload the draft or vice versa? Farcazo (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh, idrk what the difference is so you can move the draft however you want Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already moved it, the page should be deleted now. Farcazo (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support It can now be deleted because it has been combined with the other pages into one. Farcazo (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Enoteca Boccaccio

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

WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. A few WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS in Melbourne papers are not enough to demonstrate notability especially given the WP:PROMO tone of a lot of this article. The Herald Sun is dubious as a reliable source, nor is notabily inherited because the restaurant is owned by a prominent local family. Dfadden (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Australia. Dfadden (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, it needs more than restaurant reviews in Melbourne papers, otherwise we'd be creating articles for every restaurant reviewed. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom and Libstar appear to be referring to WP:AUD requirement. That requirement gives an example of how small a newspaper would be serving for it to be too small: e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town. Melbourne has a population of over 5 million. The AUD guideline requires at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. It gives an example of regional as "(e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state)". The Herald Sun is the biggest newspaper in Australia, and the Herald Sun's reliability concern is about their factual reporting, not about opinions presented about restaurants. The concern wrt opinions there would be that this was undisclosed paid promotion; there is no evidence that is the case here, indeed it is extremely unlikely.

If you exclude the Herald Sun, there is still The Age which easily meets the AUD requirement. There is plenty of other significant coverage which add up to pass WP:NCORP.[62][63][64][65] The article also doesn't read as having a particularly PROMO tone (It has been described as reminiscent of Italy's streets and piazzas. can be better attributed). It seems like editors think anything that can reflect positively on a business is PROMO. I see BLPs all the time that are far more positive: look at any celebrity FA (e.g. Katy Perry, Oscar Isaac so on.) Sorry this is so long, I really do not understand how the nom perceiving the article to have a PROMO tone would make restaurant reviews in what they describe as "Melbourne papers" not contribute to notability: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the person who wrote WP:AUD ~17 years ago, Rollinginhisgrave has the correct interpretation. Anyone who wants to learn more about AUD may find Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)/Audience requirement or the longer version at User:WhatamIdoing/Audience requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Rollinginhisgrave. I see no major issues with tone. The Herald Sun is a reliable source, especially when they are reporting outside of the political realm. Satisfies NCORP. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rollinginhisgrave, WhatamIdoing even if the sources are valid per WP:AUD, they dont really demonstrate anything other than this place exists and has generally favourable reviews. That sounds pretty WP:MILL. MILL may not be formalised policy, but it is good advice on sensible interpretation of WP:GNG and explicitly says: Some articles not to create based on common sources only are:

*A restaurant that has been given reviews in the local papers

Yes, you can argue that these papers have national circulation, but these WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS are clearly written for a local audience. If this is the standard we accept than any restaurant in a capital city that is reviewed by that city's major newspaper is inherently notable... Giving private businesses wikipedia articles based solely on reviews starts to sound a lot like a WP:TRAVELGUIDE and free publicity does it not?Dfadden (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfadden, I used small-town vs big-city restaurant reviews as an example at User:WhatamIdoing/Audience requirement#Examples, and I think you should read it.

I am confused by your claim that https://www.theage.com.au/goodfood/melbourne-eating-out/first-look-at-the-stately-enoteca-boccaccio-above-balwyn-s-boccaccio-cellars-20230614-p5dgki.html (the source I clicked on) is "clearly written for a local audience". I expected to see something like "a nice little place to visit if you're already in the neighborhood" (a polite way for reviewers to say "not the worst, but not worth a trip"). Instead, the opening sentence says "The D’Anna family has been luring Italians...to Balwyn for 60 years". Traveling from Italy to Balwyn requires 20 hours in an airplane. That's not local. Maybe you made some assumptions?

Poking around briefly, I find that the restaurant has won the 2023 "Best Hospitality Interior" from Belle (an Australian architectural/design magazine). That's another national source indicating notability. I'll go add it to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The D’Anna family has been luring Italians... it requires a bit of WP:SYNTHESIS to suggest this is saying people are travelling 20 hours from Italy just to come to this restaurant. Especially given the large Italian diaspora that exists in Melbourne and without anything to support this claim. If someone can cite a review in an Italian paper, sure! Or if there was a report saying a notable Italian person had travelled to Australia just to visit this place, or even stopped in while in town, then that would be evidence to support this claim. In the absence of this, it might as well be editorial hyperbole. And I have re-read your link to AUD examples. It is making a reasonable assumption that because a place has a large population, major newspapers in those markets will only cover businesses which stand out. However, that alone does not make a restaurant notable as it still needs to satisfy the top level criteria at WP:NORG. That requires editors to consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. So apart from the suggestion that people have travelled from Italy and an award for interior design, can you direct me to an article that provides discussion of the cultural, societal, economic or historical impact of this restaurant? An example of this standard being met is Lentil as Anything which was the subject of a book and a television documentary and catered for an International Conference. Also see Colonial Tramcar Restaurant - when it closed, The Age described the event as "A sad day for society", evidenced by support and sadness expressed in the broader community. Dfadden (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it doesn't require any SYNTH at all. SYNTH requires a minimum of two sources, and we are discussing only the interpretation of a single source. You might credibly say that I'm making a big assumption that the "Italians" who are so lured are being lured from their home country and not just from a hotel down the street. I would have to agree with you: it could be editorial hyperbole. But the ambiguity prevents me from agreeing that this review is "clearly written for a local audience", as you claimed above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Age's Good food guide is a national magazine. A chefs hat rating is akin to a Michelin star in Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly carries some weight and I am not denying this is a very well regarded restaurant. But again, does the hat provide social, cultural, historic or economic significance? I dont believe it does; this is not the only hatted italian restaurant in Melbourne - in fact, its not even in the AGFG top 5 rated italian restaurants in Melbourne[66]: Bottarga in Brighton, Al Dente Enoteca in Carlton are both double hatted and have no articles. Grossi Florentino (double hatted) has an article, which establishes cultural, social and historical significance by virtue of its Murals being classified by the National Trust and WP:LASTING coverage over 95 years. There are 4 other Italian restaurants in Melbourne that received a score of 13 chef hats, above Enoteca Boccaccio's score of 12 and none of them have articles either. So what is so significant about this place that it deserves its own article? Dfadden (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph of WP:ORGSIG that you partially quote above is about not disfavoring small businesses just because they're small, or over-favoring large businesses because they're big. We have, for example, had people suggest in the past that all publicly traded companies should be automatically notable, or that all companies employing more than n people should be notable; ORGSIG opposes this kind of bias. Editors who are thinking "Who cares, it's just a little restaurant" need to think about whether there might be something else going on – something that might even make them more successful when they search for sources. ORGSIG is not a requirement that organizations must have some cultural significance that is legible to Wikipedia editors; it is not saying that WP:ITSIMPORTANT is a good reason to keep an article. It's trying to get editors away from a knee-jerk "just a little restaurant so it's obviously non-notable" mindset towards "Let's see whether there might be something else going on here."

The rest of this comment is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bottarga and Al Dente Enoteca are probably notable, even though nobody's written the articles yet. We have many Category:Lists of Michelin-starred restaurants; maybe there should be a list of these restaurants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for engaging in the discussion with well-thought out replies. I'm not at all suggesting that small businesses are less notable than large ones. In fact, I think the example I gave of Grossi Florentino supports that small businesses can indeed be notable. I guess in this case, I have considered your proposition Let's see whether there might be something else going on here and I'm entirely unconvinced that there is anything beyond Enoteca Boccaccio being a restaurant that makes good food and has nice decor. It does sound like a great little restaurant and I'm convinced I would like to eat there. But it's more the the kind of thing I'd expect to read about in a travel or food guide, certainly not an encyclopedia. There does have to be, as you put it, something else going on here that makes it notable otherwise any restaurant with nice decor and a review in a major newspaper becomes apparently encyclopedic content. I don't think that is a good thing for wikipedia. Anyway, I have said far too much on this now, so I will pipe down now and let consensus determine the outcome. Peace. Dfadden (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the intended meaning of ORGSIG, it should be amended to be clearer. I don't Dfadden was unreasonable in making this reading. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 00:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP per the sources in the article. WP:MILL is neither a policy nor a guideline. There's no basis in notability policy that something must be unusual to be notable. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given debate over the applicability of the guidelines and essays raised in this discussion (WP:AUD, WP:MILL, WP:SYNTH), I think this would benefit from some more discussion and perspectives.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Review: Enoteca Boccaccio". Time Out. 2024-06-11. Archived from the original on 2025-04-26. Retrieved 2025-04-26.
  The review notes: "It opened last year above Boccaccio Cellars, a 60-year-old bottle shop and Italian grocer run by the multigenerational D'Anna family. Ascending the stairs, constructed from pale pink marble that perhaps intentionally resembles mortadella, feels like you’re being let in on a secret – push open the door to reveal a sleek, buzzy venue you’d never know existed from ground level. ... It’s a phrase that gets thrown around loosely but Enoteca truly offers something for everyone, whether you’re after a well-executed pasta or a few nice nibbles and a wine list you can trust. Blending style and substance in equal measure, it’s sure to become as beloved as the grocer that sits below it."
2. Dubecki, Larissa (2023-07-25). "Climb the stairway to Italian snacking heaven at Balwyn's Enoteca Boccaccio". The Age. Archived from the original on 2025-04-26. Retrieved 2025-04-26.
  The review notes: "And where I’m sitting is on a bar stool at Enoteca Boccaccio. It’s rather uncomfortable – did no one do a simple 90-minute road test before unleashing them on the public? – but that’s the only real complaint I have about this little gem of a place. ... I suspect a good proportion of Balwyn is currently lolling on a sun lounger next to the Med, but for anyone not ’gramming from Polignano a Mare or Positano, there are now plenty of consolations at the top of a steep flight of pink marble stairs on Burke Road."
3. Monssen, Kara (2023-06-30). "Enoteca Boccaccio review 2023: Kara Monssen visits Balwyn wine bar". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2023-07-05. Retrieved 2025-04-26.
  The review notes: "There’s a new bar selling champagne (the real stuff) for under $20 a glass. It’s also pouring Bordeaux as old as the Sydney Olympics for a steal. Not your jam? How about pinot grigio for a tenner, or a bottle — not from the reserve list — for under $100. And on some days, you can BYO. There’s no catch, nor any God-ugly thick-rimmed, stumpy glassware at this bar. Just a wine-loving family doing us a solid in the suburbs. Even if you don’t drink, Enoteca Boccaccio is swoonworthy."
4. Emilia (2023-11-07). "Emilia reviews a modern Italian wine bar that is winning awards 'left, right and centre'". 3AW. Archived from the original on 2025-04-26. Retrieved 2025-04-26.
  The review notes: "Only having opened in June this year, Enoteca Boccaccio is already winning awards left, right and centre including design awards (Best Australian Hospitality Design) and a Good Food Guide hat."
5. Jones, Evan (2023-08-08). "Now Open: Balwyn's Enoteca Boccaccio Is a New Upstairs Wine Bar From a Longstanding Italian Grocer and Bottle Shop". Broadsheet. Archived from the original on 2023-08-09. Retrieved 2025-04-26.
  The review notes: "As you walk up the stairs to the venue, a quote from the famed 14th-century Italian writer for whom the store is named, Giovanni Boccaccio, prepares you for the evening: “It’s better to repent what you enjoyed than to repent not having enjoyed anything.” The fit-out, designed by South Yarra firm Mim Design, features Carrara marble, granite, brass and terracotta. Bar stools in the darkly lit space centre around the kitchen pass in the centre of the room and natural light pours in through the windows during the day."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Enoteca Boccaccio to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WOSL (Florida)

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

Does not meet GNG and entirely relies on a single primary source. Another article of the same defunct radio station exist WMIC (1590 AM). I think they should be deleted or merged as a list of old radio stations in America. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the author created multiple of this. I draftified some of them Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Taylor

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:BIO and more specifically, I don't think any of the criteria in WP:AUTHOR are made out. Article as it is currently written has WP:NPOV issues, seems like WP:PROMO, and has had an orange WP:GNG tag at the top for nearly ten years, so I'm inclined to delete on TNT grounds even if my brief search for other notability failed me. Flip^and Flopped ツ 01:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning weak keep as there are at least three reviews of her book "Faith and Power"; she co-authored it so not sure how that counts towards notability here but there's an argument for WP:NAUTHOR. The last six references in this article are non-primary references and book reviews. Nnev66 (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources supporting the article are marginal at best. It reads like a puff piece using marginal sources. A real WP article about the subject would be 2-3 paragraphs at best. Angryapathy (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krishi Kumbh 2018

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

This regional agriculture conference fails WP:NEVENT for lack of continued coverage (it seems to have had a burst of coverage around the event) and fails WP:GNG for lack of reliable secondary source coverage (the only sources in the article and in a WP:BEFORE search are unbylined, press-release-driven churnalism articles in WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources). Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Events, Technology, and Uttar Pradesh. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all applicable content can live on Narendra Modi entry if of enough note. --Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WMIC (1590 AM)

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

Does not meet GNG as there are no significant coverage from reliable sources to add more information about the defunct radio station Uncle Bash007 (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Michigan. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability for a long defunct radio station 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 20:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Takahiro Sasaki (footballer)

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

Retired in 1998 after 13 professional appearances. Creator is indefinitely blocked. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage and there is little here to make coverage on. Geschichte (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW, that applies this time.. (non-admin closure) -Mushy Yank. 18:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

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

The article Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (WP:NOTE) for a standalone page and violates WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:COATRACK. It aggregates loosely related interpretations—feminist analyses (e.g., Shelob as vagina dentata), queer readings of Frodo/Sam, and non-sexual themes like friendship or heroic bonds—under a broad “sexuality” framework, creating a misleading synthesis that overemphasizes speculative perspectives not central to Tolkien’s work. Many cited sources (e.g., Partridge, Jaques) are niche within Tolkien scholarship, and reliance on primary texts (e.g., Tolkien’s letters) risks WP:NOR by inferring sexual themes not explicitly supported. Other content, particularly on gender dynamics, overlaps with Women in The Lord of the Rings.

While the article holds Good Article status (GA review, Sept. 2021), this reflects one reviewer’s assessment and does not override community consensus on notability or due weight. Sexuality is not a primary or widely recognized theme in The Lord of the Rings, unlike themes like heroism or good vs. evil, and the article’s 39k-byte scope gives WP:UNDUE weight to minority views, potentially inflating their prominence (WP:LIPSTICK).

I propose merging notable content to existing articles: vagina dentata symbolism to Shelob#Sexual monster, and queer perspectives to Themes of The Lord of the Rings#Debated themes, following precedents like Themes in A Song of Ice and Fire. Since Women in The Lord of the Rings already covers related gender themes, these merges would place content in more relevant contexts, eliminating the need for a standalone article. If merging is not viable, deletion is warranted per Wikipedia’s content policies. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: This nomination is based on prior discussions at Talk:Themes of The Lord of the Rings#Sexuality,_etc. (April 11–17, 2025) and Talk:Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings (April 6–9, 2025). 87.116.181.138 (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "contested themes" pages lack the depth of this article which seems a reasonable survey of the literature on this topic. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: I have undone a disruptive non-admin closure of this AfD, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 24. @Dracophyllum: feel free to contribute now if you would like to. Sandstein 08:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging other editors from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings to notify them of the reopening: Chiswick Chap, Vpab15, StarTrekker. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
adding @Remsense: to that. Lectonar (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, although Remsense has already been notified on their talk page. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: is this the IP you blocked for User:Operahome's socking? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Such aspersions are inappropriate. If you have concerns, please take them to the appropriate venue. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly an aspersion when two massive colored boxes appear on your own contributions page. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one box that I see, and it relates to another user in my IP range. Again, it is not appropriate to bring this up here, as it casts aspersions without addressing my arguments. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a large range; assume unrelated unless there's a behavioral connection. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's always surprising to see the quantity of LOTR articles, but it comes as a result of the impact that LOTR had on literature and the resulting hundreds of books and articles. The page is a good summary of sources on the topic, passed GAN, and should stay. Draco phyllum 09:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. I'm actually sympathetic to Ramsense, as the notability of the topic—which has been discussed in multiple academic books and journals—is clear to a blind man. While neither of their close rationales applied—meaning the close shouldn't have been made of course—frankly the nomination was as disruptve as the close. More so, in fact, as several edtors are going to have to defend an article that shouldn't need to be defended for the next 168 hours. Unless someone SNOW closes it of course. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 10:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THREE

RoySmith's essay may only be an essay, but it is an excellent rule of thumb for establishing the likelihood of notability. In the case of this article, some of such sources are used (and indeed some are currently not). For example

Craig, David M. (2001). "'Queer Lodgings': Gender and Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings". Mallorn (38): 11–18. JSTOR 45321703. (currently used)

Miller, T. M.; Miller, E. (2021). "Tolkien and Rape: Sexual Terror, Sexual Violence, and the Woman's Body in Middle-earth". Extrapolation. 62 (2): 133–156. doi:10.3828/extr.2021. (currently unused)

Partridge, B. (2008) [1984]. "No Sex Please—We're Hobbits: The Construction of Female Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings". In Giddings, Robert (ed.). J. R. R. Tolkien, this Far Land. Vision. pp. 179–197. ISBN 978-0389203742. (currently used)
To list any others would be beyond the scope of WP:THREE. Oh, alright then.

Smol, Anna (2004). "Oh ... Oh ... Frodo! Readings of Male Intimacy in 'The Lord of the Rings'". Modern Fiction Studies. 50 (4 (Winter 2004)): 949–979. doi:10.1353/mfs.2005.0010. S2CID 161500890 – via Project Muse. (currently used)

Rohy, Valerie (2004). "On Fairy Stories". Modern Fiction Studies. 50 (4): 927–948. doi:10.1353/mfs.2005.0009. S2CID 161177483 – via Project MUSE. (currently used)

Timmons, Daniel (2001). "Hobbit Sex and Sensuality in The Lord of the Rings". Mythlore. 23 (3). Article 7. (currently used)

Smol, A. (2013) [2006]. "Sexuality n Tolkein's Works". In Drout, M. D. C. (ed.). The J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia. Routledge. pp. 601–603. ISBN 978-1-13588-033-0. (currently unused)
The fact that so many of these are already used in the article merely demonstrates the disruptive nature of this nomination. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this was a disruptive AfD to open - it is entirely without merit and seems to be motivated by the discomfort of a few editors who would rather critics didn't explore Tolkien's work through this lens. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of proof this is a topic which has been explored in research and literary criticism, which we can make into an encyclopedic summary here. /Julle (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Love and marriage section overlaps significantly with Women in The Lord of the Rings, which covers gender dynamics and romantic relationships (e.g., Arwen/Aragorn, Éowyn/Faramir), rendering it redundant in a standalone Sexuality article, per WP:UNDUE. Similarly, feminist interpretations of Shelob in the Female monster section, such as vagina dentata symbolism, are already addressed in Shelob#Sexual monster, where they are more relevant. Including non-sexual themes like the officer-batman relationship and heroic friendship under a “sexuality” framework stretches the article’s scope, creating a WP:COATRACK and giving WP:UNDUE weight to minority readings. While scholarly sources exist, critics like Valerie Rohy note the “absence of sexuality” in The Lord of the Rings, suggesting these interpretations don’t warrant a standalone page. Merging to Shelob#Sexual monster and Themes of The Lord of the Rings#Debated themes better contextualizes this content. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand what WP:COATRACK means. An article can't be a coatrack for it's own expressed topic. Furtermore it's a serious violation of WP:NPOV to say that because a scholar doesn't see sexuality in a work therefore any scholar who does is wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the article (like sections "Tolkien's background" or "Love and marriage") has nothing to do with sexuality. The remaining either focuses too much on fan fiction or can easily be moved to other articles. The section "Female monster" should be moved to Shelob for example. I agree with nom that the article relies to much on what appear WP:FRINGE sources, whereas the mainstream consensus seems to be that there is an almost total absence of sexuality in the novel. Vpab15 (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please identify the fringe sources. Because I don't see any. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever wrote about "nongenital tactile intimacy between men". The article presents fringe ideas as mainstream and labels mainstream scholars that deny any sexuality is present in the novel as "critics". It is bad enough when an article uses WP:FALSEBALANCE to present a fringe view as equally valid. In this case, it is worse since the fringe view is given more weight than the mainstream one. Vpab15 (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's flat nonsense. Because the quote comes with the following citation: Vaccaro, Christopher (2013) [2006]. "Homosexuality". In Drout, Michael D. C. (ed.). The J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia. Routledge. pp. 285–286. ISBN 978-1-1358-8033-0.

Are you really trying to suggest that the Routledge-published J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia is a fringe source? Or that Christopher Vaccaro, a senior lecturer in English at University of Vermont for the last 25 years is unqualified to write about Tolkien scholarship? You should not be using WP:IDONTLIKEIT to decide what is fringe. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW here's Vacarro's bio. He's literally a Tolkien specialist. [67] Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia, the article mentions quite a lot of criticism, like "the quality of entries can run the gamut from masterful to pedestrian". You are just doing appeals to authority. There are a lot of climate scientists that deny climate change, but we still consider their views as fringe. Vpab15 (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just declare a specialist in the field fringe because you don't like what he says. That's not how WP:FRINGE works. Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But, lest you think that's just me saying that I've raised the question at the Fringe theories noticeboard. Please see here. I provided a link to this AfD so that people with expertise in the Fringe policy can participate in this deletion discussion. I took care to frame the question neutrally. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The user above me is 100% right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:b021:8f02:892e:c71f:b1e2:2b86:6fd9 (talk • contribs)

Wut Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a closer will give much weight to this empty comment by a dynamic IP with zero edit history. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any reason why this should be deleted or even considered a low quality article. It seems like a big case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here and simply disagreeing with the cited sources, which is not a valid reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a gamergate Reddit thread that was created recently about this page. [68] so I think it'd be wise for the closer to consider that many of the lower-quality delete-votes have likely been canvassed off-wiki. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such votes aren't appropriate, and canvassing is forbidden. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this subject has been noted by multiple scholars and critics from soon after the novel's publication, as cited in the article, and they have expressed multiple points of view on it, as described and cited in the article's chapters. The subject is certainly notable, cited to a large number of reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been a lot of scholarship on The Lord of the Rings, so that even this subject which is less prominent than e.g. Heroism in The Lord of the Rings (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS...) has received way enough serious and reliable treatment to warrant a full article, easily fullfilling the notability requirements - as demonstrated by the existence of a sourced, GA article. To have various aspects of this topic in one article also makes sense to avoid several small separated ones. Daranios (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see multiple secondary sources with titles that indicate they are specifically about this topic, indicating on even a cursory glance that the subject is notable. Perception312 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominator appears to be saying that there is overlap between this article and other articles. Yes. In any topic area where there is a large body of scholarly literature (in this case, scholarly literature about a body of literature by a scholar), there will be overlapping content. See the guideline on content forks, and this article and the others cited by the nominator are acceptable and useful content forks. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note that Robert was involved in overturning the speedy keep of this AfD. Since these are separate issues, I see no problem with them casting a vote here, even though we disagree on the outcome of this particular discussion. Being able to collaborate with others means accepting that you'll disagree on some things and agree on others. If you're an independent thinker, you'll never agree 100% with anyone. Recognizing this is what makes collaboration meaningful. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Duh. An unregistered editor has just given an experienced editor permission to take part in this AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The arguments for deletion appear to be ideologically motivated. When policies are cited, the arguments for the relevance of the police amount to straw men, red herrings, or flat-out non sequiturs. In short, this AfD is a waste of time. Strebe (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the existence of this article just gives undue weight to a minority position. We're not here to document every viewpoint/analysis of Tolkien's work. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense; the article does not take any positive, minority or otherwise; it notes that multiple critics have discussed the issue, and describes in turn each of the conflicting positions they have taken, without favouring any of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should delete Liechtenstein, an article which gives undue weight to many viewpoints that have only been expressed by a tiny minority of country experts. We're not here to document every analysis relating to what countries are like, how they came to be, or why they exist in the first place. Remsense ‥ 论 14:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is faulty as the nominator requested the article to be merged, not deleted. That's a different process. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they've proposed both deletion and merging, on the same (spurious) grounds, and it makes sense to have just one discussion on the subject; WP:AfD says directly that "Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." so this forum is understood to cover all those possible outcomes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article seems fine and none of the votes to delete seem reasonable. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 12:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously I can't close this because I'm quite involved but I know there's a couple admins watching this page at this point. Anyone willing to say this is a snow-close yet? So far the delete !votes have not cited any policy correctly and there's almost no delete !votes to boot. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The suggested policy violations aren’t violations. This seems to be a case of the nominator’s distaste for the topic.OsFish (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of all the sources, which are sufficient to blow the case for deletion completely out of the water. Hi, all you redditors!—S Marshall T/C 08:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or as Cullen put it, "a handful of cranks bitching and moaning on reddit" :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 09:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PC Chris

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. No noteworthy biographical information. The article has few sources, several of which are taken from social media such as Reddit and Twitter, which are not reliable. MidnightMayhem 10:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can mostly find articles about police constables named Chris... The sourcing now in the article isn't RS, this was the closest I could find [69]. We just don't have enough sourcing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are reliable, but they're entirely lists, and passing references. The bit of trivia about him briefly holding a record for largest payout seemed promising, that's the sort of thing that might get news media interested, but I can't find any articles about that. ApLundell (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Fallon, Nevada shooting

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

A mentally incompetent man shoots two people, killing one. Do we really need to record that here for eternity? Are we helping either of the BLPs involved in this by naming them here? Yes, it got some attention, news loves shootings and trials, but in the end this has no lasting impact, no new laws, no criminal gangs uncovered, no mastermind behind bars... Fram (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Nevada. Fram (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS due to lack of WP:LASTING and a classic case of WP:DOGBITESMAN. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another senseless article from the true crime part of our project that really needs to be better about sensitivity and notability; this simply is neither. Nathannah • 📮 14:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a run-of-the-mill shooting (no better way to describe something like the in the United States unfortunately) lacking in notable coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens :(, per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is very small with little info and not well made.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteInsufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Elder Scrolls Renewal Project

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

The Oblivion ~~remake~~remaster has brought these modders back into the limelight, but I am very dubious on the notability of the overarching project. Note that Skywind and Skyblivion already exist as articles and are obviously notable, but I'm not seeing the same level of notability for the mod team. Even stuff like this largely talks about Skywind. Notability is not inherited, as with any other game development studio, fan or not. ~~There's also no obvious place to redirect, as they are literally making 2 games.~~ Actually, Skyrim modding could be a potential place to redirect the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skyrim modding: They are mentioned in that article, under the section "Total conversions". silviaASH (inquire within) 09:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should Redirect Skywind to Skyrim modding as well as this article, btw. I'm not sure about the notability of Skyblivion (it seems fine?), but Skywind, while it might very well meet WP:NEXIST, doesn't look ready for the mainspace. The existing content there should be draftified until such time as it's been more properly fleshed out. Coming here to state this after the issue of Skywind being un-BLAR'd was raised at WT:VG#New Articles (April 21 to April 27). silviaASH (inquire within) 18:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is full of reliable, secondary source coverage specific to the group and their projects, enough to establish their notability independent from the larger modding scene. I don't think Skywind is necessarily independently notable: you restored it from a redirect 20 minutes before nominating this, it cites only one secondary source, and hasn't been widely covered since 2014. Skywind can be adequately covered in summary style in its parent article, as is currently done. There's enough coverage of Morroblivion, Skywind, and the collective to justify a standalone article. I wouldn't be opposed to merging to Skyrim modding as I think this should be covered in summary style there too, but we can already see from the sources that it has enough coverage to keep and justify a split, dedicated article. czar 11:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are there: [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] So ultimately, the current state of an article means nothing as long as notability is demonstrated, and the idea that it hasn't been covered since 2014 is just untrue(?) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the project itself. Also open to other targets, per WP:ATD. The team isn't notable outside of the actual project itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' This nomination is correct on its merits (this modding group does not seem independently notable of its projects), but I'm close to "IAR keep, merge Skywind and Skyblivion back in" because the current organization does not improve the encyclopedia. I have two issues, one being the structural problem of a developer being notable for two works but not independently notable having no natural redirect target or place to put summary information, the way that a developer notable for one work naturally does. As a result, there's no natural redirect target. The other is that there's little encyclopedic information actually contained in the two individual remake articles. It's a bunch of WP:PRIMARY information about the development process. We might be better off with one article, at least until the time there's enough secondary-source information about the games to justify two articles. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not cleanup, and we should also not be basing deletion decisions on whether the articles need cleanup. This is on the notability merits of this specific article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Zx, you're technically right by policy. I concede as much in the first sentence. My argument is that the encyclopedia is worse off for the reader, even if the articles technically hew closer to WP:GNG, after you split off Skywind and AFDed The Elder Scrolls Renewal Project. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put my bolded vote in as Keep, merge Skywind and Skyblivion back to The Elder Scrolls Renewal Project. I prefer this solution to, but would not oppose, Merge All to Skyrim modding as suggested by Serge. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My vote was only to merge the content of The Elder Scrolls Renewal Project that is related to the mod group to Skyrim modding. Skywind and Skyblivion are very likely notable and should be kept as separate articles. --Mika1h (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for misreading your comment and have clarified. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Skyrim modding#Total conversions, fails WP:NORG. There's already a short paragraph about the subject at the merge target. The info about the mod group could be easily covered there. Edit: Keep Skywind and Skyblivion. These should remain separate articles. --Mika1h (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Skyrim modding#Total conversions. All these article are considerably worse when split up. Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article and the two Skyrim mods they made to Skyrim modding per others. Given the largely duplicative nature of much of the summary-info, this can likely be merged in without much effort. The splits are largely unnecessary, and can be removed for reader benefit. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Whether the other mod pages should be merged should be another separate discussion on those pages. This discussion was certainly not started with that purpose and it is the totally wrong forum to discuss a merge of a totally different page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the only reason Skywind is an article right now is that editors kept it open for this discussion. If not for that, then if we're following WP:BRD, we're going to be at you boldly recreating it (for some reason just before creating this nomination?), me reverting it, and it staying like that until you get a new consensus to recreate. So...get ready to start a new discussion on that if you're trying to venue games like that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to start a separate discussion on it, even now if you want, though I personally think that with the current improvements to Skywind's page, it would have difficulty justifying precisely why the article is somehow superfluous. Either way, I don't think this is the right venue for that because only people heavily involved in this discussion are placing their opinion here on that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Running concurrent discussions is not good practice or advice. There are discussion tags and links to this discussion at all of the articles, FYI. Nothing wrong here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that all mentioned should be merged into Skyrim modding. While this discussion is only for the article nominated, we can still use the consensus formed here in order to determine whether the split-off mods should be separate articles. There's no need to have a second venue to determine whether the mod articles should be separate or not if there's a strong enough consensus here. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't come to a decision yet on this specific article, but I would oppose merging Skyblivion. It is clearly notable and has received sustained coverage, and I'm not convinced by the NOPAGE arguments. Again, haven't finished looking at the other two yet, just wanted to get this out there. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I finished looking through the other pages. Merge Elder Scrolls Renewal Project and weak merge Skywind into Skyrim modding because they aren't independently notable enough. Keep Skyblivion because it got considerably more coverage than Skywind, it meets GNG, and I'm not convinced by the NOPAGE argument. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR:For Skywind these articles from reliable sources establishes its notability: PC Games.de preview, GameStar preview, and PC Gamer article about a quest trailer, unlike other trailer announcements, it's more substantial and includes enough critical analysis to count as significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I might also add that I don't agree with previous statements that merging info on the mod group and creating separate articles for Skywind and Skyblivion makes the encyclopedia somehow worse. Summaries on the two mods can still be included in the Skyrim modding article, like it is now in The Elder Scrolls Renewal Project. There's over decade worth of coverage and development info on both games, so they can be further expanded from their current state. See WP:NOMERGE: "Merging should be avoided if [...] The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles." --Mika1h (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ethiopia at the 1972 Summer Olympics. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kebede Bedasso

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

Declined prod. 5 of the 6 sources are merely databases/results listing. The 6th source when translated is a small 1 line mention of Bedasso and not SIGCOV for meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. Those arguing keep should supply indepth sources and not invoke NEXIST which has been discounted by many editors and admins in these athlete AfDs. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Ethiopia. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I did expand the article just before it was nominated for deletion. Per comment, "It goes against our ethics on ADL for a nominator to dictate to the community which guidlines they should not invoke in their rationale/votes", I don't think it's acceptable to pre-empt valid P&G-based arguments in a nominating statement.

Per the WP:RS cited in the article, Bedasso was one of Ethiopia's fastest ever sprinters in the 1970s and is still one of their fastest today, and was one of their only Olympic sprinters. A similar article about an Ethiopian sprinter, Negussie Roba, was nominated for deletion, then sources were found and it became a GA. I think a similar amount of sourcing should exist here, but it would be in Ethiopian newspaper archives that we don't have access to right now. --Habst (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bedasso was one of Ethiopia's fastest ever sprinters in the 1970s and is still one of their fastest today, and was one of their only Olympic sprinters. This may be true but not reasons for inherent notability. We need actual sources. LibStar (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, I agree that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. That's why we have to base our rationale on the extant coverage, taking into account the types of places we know athletes like this were covered in. We know that the statement about his times and being one of their only Olympic sprinters is true for sure because we have multiple RS confirming it, including several sources cited in the article. --Habst (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ethiopia at the 1972 Summer Olympics - We don't have sources, as admitted above. We have to have sources to write an article. The redirect ATF preserves page history should sources one day become available. Does not pass WP:GNG, WP:NATH nor WP:BASIC. The NEXIST argument is spurious. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No evidence of the required IRS SIGCOV sourcing. NEXIST is irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sirfuboy. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, which mandates in clear language: "All sports biographies . . . must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Here, no such SIGCOV has been presented. A redirect preserves the article history, such that it can be restored if and when SIGCOV is found. The notion that there might (or might not) be SIGCOV of an Ethiopian relay team that did not even finish its preliminary heat in no way trumps the clear and mandatory language of prong 5 quoted above. Cbl62 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, fails WP:NSPORTS. Mere participation does not indicate notability. Superlative language that does not amount to WP:SIGCOV does not show notability.

@LibStar and Habst: - WP:NEXIST is a perfectly OK argument, but what it says is that so long as a source/sources giving significant coverage exists, then the topic can be notable even if it is not cited in the article, but you still have to show that the source actually exists. It is not sufficient to simply claim that the topic was really famous and so sources must exist as mere fame does not indicate notability. Similarly it is not enough just to point to the potential existence of possible sources and claim "there must be newspaper coverage". The reality is there weren't many newspapers in 1970's Ethiopia - literacy rates in Ethiopia before 1974 were lower than 10%. What newspapers there were wouldn't necessarily have had detailed biographical coverage of Bedasso but may well (as is very common) have only covered the sports events that Bedasso took part in and only mentioned Bedasso in passing without providing any details about him. However, if anyone wants to get access to the Ethiopian Herald archives that are accessible here: [77] they are welcome to confirm this.

An example of something that might pass WP:NEXIST would be where we know (e.g., from reviews) that a full biography of substantial length of the subject from a reliable and independent publisher exists but we don't have access to it. FOARP (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I agree that Ethiopian coverage is more difficult to find than that of other Western countries, especially because we don't speak the language.

I don't see any indication that literacy rates were below 10% in 1974. This document shows a literacy rate among rural populations that was low, but the table on page 11 only discusses rural populations. On the other hand the subject is linked to a big city Addis Ababa that would have had more coverage available.

I even agree it's important to scrutinize "coverage" and not just settle for routine race results, but again I don't see why newspapers would not have covered Bedasso in a biographical / analytical manner as they do other sports stars.

Checking the Ethiopian Herald archives would be a great start, but it seems they are only accessible to certain institutions. If you know an access code I would happily check them. Until we do have access, I don't see how we could close this AfD without even checking the most likely venues for coverage, which is part of WP:BEFORE. --Habst (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that we have to keep articles, that we have already hosted for 8 years without the appropriate sourcing being added, in the hope that sources will turn up eventually. So do our PAGs. Deletion simply isn’t that final: if and when the sources are found, the article can be written. FOARP (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP, a head's up if you're thinking of investing time into writing further thoughtful detailed responses, the (in)applicability of NEXIST has been explained and demonstrated to Habst in at least 2 dozen AfDs at this point (a sampling: [1]
[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]16). It goes nowhere. JoelleJay (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay, I have a lot of respect for your contributions. For the response the last time you copy-pasted those same AfDs into a discussion I participated in, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raja Faradj Al-Shalawi. Each article needs to be considered on its own merits, and an issue with redirection is that it's much more difficult for new editors (including Wikipedians in Ethiopia, who would be most likely to have access to high-quality sources about Bedasso) to edit an existing article as opposed to converting a redirect. --Habst (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay posted this to highlight that you have been using NEXIST in a way that is not agreed by the wider community and admins. Indeed it's a failure of you to accept consensus. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is not agreed upon by the wider community or admins? There is often no consensus in these discussions; see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Rate-limiting new PRODs and AfDs?. I have always accepted consensus, and when deciding to keep an article we have to consider extant sources even if they aren't linked in the article itself. --Habst (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus that NEXIST does not give free pass to notability in athlete AfDs when no indepth sources can be found. LibStar (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, and that's never how I have used NEXIST. That doesn't change the fact that all sources should be considered in AfD discussions even if they aren't linked in the article. --Habst (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is how you always use NEXIST. Its obvious intended purpose is as a reminder to noms to do a standard BEFORE and a simple recommendation to !voters to look for sources themselves before !voting, not as a !vote rationale unto itself and certainly not one when no in-depth sources can be found. JoelleJay (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ethiopia at the 1972 Summer Olympics: Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ethiopia at the 1972 Summer Olympics . To me this makes the most sense since we do not have enough sources for him as an individual but he is significant to this event and this is the main event he is associated with. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pippa Malmgren

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

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

Not a single piece of WP:SIGCOV in this BLP (a possible WP:VANITY BLP, I'm speculating [but don't know], based on the licensing of the Sears glamor shot in the infobox). A standard WP:BEFORE finds nothing either. WP:POLOUTCOMES does not presume notability for the minor post of special assistant. Fellows of the RSA -- the only other possible claim to WP:N -- are apparently self-nominated persons who pay a $100 registration fee [78]. Chetsford (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Economics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chetsford's read of the sourcing appears correct, and cuts well through the glut. My own WP:BEFORE did not yield more significant results. JFHJr (㊟) 04:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I looked for, did not find sigcov. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - just like Chetsford. You joined 8 years ago. Small world, huh...? Einheit947 (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is your obvious evidence of socking (per bellow), I suggest you try a little harder as (per their two xtools [79][80]) they have basically no similarity in editing topic and are clearly in different time zones. If you have any other inane speculation about other users you wish to post here, my recommendation is don't, and if you have any serious evidence raise it at the appropriate channels (i.e. not this AFD). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm also finding precious little WP:SIGCOV to show this meets WP:NBIO. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also open to a Redirect to Harald Malmgren as an WP:ATD Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Dr. Pippa Malmgren meets notability criteria per WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. She has significant, independent coverage in reputable sources, demonstrating sustained impact in economics, policy, and leadership.

- She was featured on Bloomberg’s *Merryn Talks Money* podcast discussing U.S.–China conflict risks ([Bloomberg, 2023](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2023-12-14/merryn-talks-money-avoiding-war-in-space-podcast)).

- Interviewed by *MoneyWeek* on interpreting everyday economic signals ([MoneyWeek, 2015](https://moneyweek.com/379100/dr-pippa-malmgren-how-to-read-the-signs-of-doom)).

- Regular contributor to CNBC and BBC programs such as *Newsnight* and *Hard Talk* ([Speakers Corner profile](https://www.speakerscorner.co.uk/keynote-speakers/pippa-malmgren)).

- Author of multiple published works:

- *Signals* (Grosvenor House, 2014)

- *Geopolitics for Investors* (CFA Institute, 2015)

- *The Leadership Lab* (Kogan Page, 2018), which won the Business Book of the Year Award ([FT article](https://www.ft.com/content/6dc2e2e0-3cb3-11e9-9bee-efab61506f44))

- Served as Special Assistant to President George W. Bush on the National Economic Council ([White House archives](https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/administration/Staff.html)).

- Named a World Economic Forum Global Leader for Tomorrow in 2000 ([MacroVoices podcast](https://www.macrovoices.com/podcasts-collection/macrovoices-hot-topic-podcasts/646-hot-topic-2-dr-hal-dr-pippa-malmgren-father-daughter-presidential-advisor-team)).

These sources provide significant coverage that is both independent and reliable. She clearly qualifies for a standalone article under Wikipedia notability guidelines. 64.98.74.238 (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When we say significant, independent coverage in reputable sources we are not looking for interviews in or expert quotes given to reliable sources as these aren't coverage of the person. Publishing books (in and of its self) is not enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR. The FT award is more interesting but your link doesn't work, and I can't find anything about it on the web. Much of the rest is covered by the nom already. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to ask if the above is AI generated (thus explaining the hallucinated FT link, broken incorrect formating and making points already discussed in nom)? GPTZero gives 100% chance of AI generated, but I guess I'll give you the chance to explain whether that's the case. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there lovely person. Don't think that's AI generated. Mostly because AI either gives me no links or correct but irrelevant links. Broken links are probably the result of a typo. Furthermore, the incorrect broken formatting if anything points to a fallible human rather than a machine.

Perhaps the reason why they're making points already discussed in nom is because the persons interested in this article's deletion give no credence to easily discernible and verifiable facts?

Btw - Leadership Lab did win Business Book of the year award: https://www.thebookseller.com/news/kogan-page-scoops-business-book-year-award-981931 CodenamePingu123 (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re the formatting it seems to be Reddit's formatting ([81]; even more so before I reformatted some of it) which could either be AI generated by somebody used to generating for reddit, a person writing whose used to reedit formatting or copied from a reddit comment. This is why I referenced GPTZero on the original comment, but as it isn't necessarily fool-proof I thought I would ask for confirmation from the person who posted it.

Re the award, I had misunderstood this as referring to the Financial Times Business Book of the Year Award which, as a very notable award, would have significantly contributed to her notability per WP:ANYBIO. Instead it's the much less notable Business Book Awards "Business Book of the Year award", which is much less likely to lend to notability unfortunately. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all should be aware that this article has been tangentially mentioned in various fora during an ongoing off wiki condonation campaign (e.g. [82], [83], [84]) so theirs a possibility of WP:CANVASSING to keep in mind here.Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also mentioned in this hour long talk show Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And another one: [85] Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we call for a block on "Chetsworth" pulling this crap, please...? It's pretty obvious someone's operating a sockpuppet account here, I have no idea what their problem is with the late Mr Malmgren, Pippa or Christopher Mellon for that matter - they hit him yesterday as well as Malmgren - I'm sure they're sticking to the strict letter of the law but these deletion calls really are bullshit.

I don't know what's pissing me off more at present - this person vandalising Wikipedia like this or this idiot making me actually agree with UFO nuts....

KEEP THE ARTICLE - QUIT PULLING THIS BS

If there are issues, correct them - stop with these pointless calls for deletion, this is obviously targeted and clearly done in service of some idiot sceptic group's addenda. I don't give the first shit what they're calling themselves this week - knock. it. on. the. head.

Do we have a label for that one...? Should we invest, do y'think...? Einheit947 (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this is obviously targeted and clearly done in service of some idiot sceptic group's addenda I would recommend avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH (with zero evidence beyond you disliking that editors are holding these articles to actual standards). It does nothing to help demonstrate notability of this article to tilt at imaginary WP:CABALS. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to cast aspersions and make unfounded allegations against editors commenting here, I will be calling for a block against you. Please knock it off. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing much recent coverage about her.

WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – two articles with SIGCOV.
- Heller, Michele (May 24, 2001). "Adviser on Banking Gives Bush a Trader's-Eye View". American Banker. Vol. 166, no. 100. Gale A74983396.
- Barreras, Bryan (February 23, 2023). "Fund Finance Symposium Panel Recap: A Geopolitics Discussion With Pippa Malmgren". Mondaq Business Briefing. Gale A738241410.

Biography from Royal United Services Institute, can be used to fill in biographical details.

- "Dr Pippa Malmgren Biography". Royal United Services Institute.

Pippa Malmgren is often given credit for coining the term Shrinkflation

- Taş, Hilal; Boyacıoğlu, Ebru Z. (24 October 2024). "Shrinkflasyonun Tüketici Kararlarına Etkisinin Davranışsal İktisat Çerçevesinde İncelenmesi" [Examining the Effect of Shrinkflation on Consumer Decisions within the Framework of Behavioral Economics]. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. 46 (2): 404–428. doi:10.14780/muiibd.1478148. ISSN 2587-2672.
- Wong, Wailin; Ma, Adrian (September 30, 2022). "The journey a number of econ terms recently went through to get into the dictionary". All Things Considered. NPR.
- Dodwell, David (18 October 2024). "Outside In | For Hong Kong's poorest, cheapflation hits harder than shrinkflation". South China Morning Post.

Business Book of the Year award

- Mansfield, Katie (April 3, 2019). "Kogan Page title scoops Business Book of the Year award". The Bookseller.

Journal article where she is significantly mentioned and referenced.

- Mathonniere, Julien (13 June 2023). "Guerre économique et multilatéralisme : un conflit majeur se dessine-t-il?". Revue Défense Nationale (in French). 861 (6): 145–153. doi:10.3917/rdna.861.0145.

And quite frankly, when I see snide comments being made about the subject of a BLP (Sears glamor shot in the infobox), it diminishes the credibility of the nomination, in my view, because it's certainly not described as such on the file information at commons. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the headshot is the first thing I noticed about the article, as an image that good is either self promo (which is fine by me if your releasing it under a free licence) or copyvio. It seems the former as the upload here is predates the upload by the subject to Flickr and was uploaded by user whose only other upload was logo of DPRM, the company she founded. With all that said, the account in question only ever made very minor edits to Malmgren's article. There's also the accounts: DRPMGroup, Dr Pippa Malmgren and Pippa Malmgren that have also made small edits. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These strike me as mostly incidental mentions that don't pass our WP:SIGCOV standard. Moreover, the word choice of an AfD is not a policy-based reason for Keep. Chetsford (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my last paragraph, I was just pointing out your word choice was an unnecessary and snide comment. My rationale for Keep was not based on your poor word choice, which is quite clear. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think the American Banker article counts as SIGCOV, I'm not so convinced by the others. The Mondaq Business Briefing article, for instance, to me is a interview that struggles to offer independent coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Isaidnoway's cited sigcov. As noted by others, much of the language of the deletion is problematic. Timing is worth mentioning: We all understand what it's like to fall down a wiki rabbit hole and try to improve multiple related articles. But the timing (which I truly believe to be an artifact for innocently of falling down a rabbit hole) does give the odious impression of retaliation for the 'sins of the father'. I don't believe that to be the case at all, but it does bear repeating that we'd never ever delete someone's bio because of something her father said. Feoffer (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More than sufficient coverage in realiable sources, per Isaidnoway. And as an entirely separate matter, I would echo the concerns raised by others about this problematic nomination. I am myself an FRSA and I certainly didn't self-nominate. I don't think that in general, being an FRSA is sufficient for notability in Wikipedia but the implication that it's somehow questionable is unwarranted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, God-king, never mind FRSA, howabout AGF. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect: I honestly don't think that you should participate in votes at all, Mr. Wales. Your public actions have a significant influence on how people decide here due to your popularity (your influence, specifically your comment here, is already part of discussions outside of Wikipedia), unintentionally causing a conflict of interest. Very hungry Yeti (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Best advice: don't 'elevate' him to some superior role, addressing him as "Mr. Wales", as if he's somehow "above" you and I or has final control over wiki content -- he's never pretended to such a role! Feoffer (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is just as entitled to comment as you, me, or any other editor. Gronk Oz (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If he wants to, he should. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Upon further searching, I found another article with sigcov, in addition to the American Banker profile cited by Isaidnoway: Boulton, Layla (27 September 2017). "Silicon Valley is not the only route to success". Financial Times. Subtitled "Women in technology Two founders with contrasting motives blaze a trail." One of the two women profiled is Malmgren. Those two good sources, combined with the sheer amount of quotes of her as an economic expert suggest to me that she meets WP:NSCHOLAR#C7 through her popular influence if not scholarly impact, and quite possibly GNG as well, though I don't think it's as clear cut as other !voters are suggesting. For instance, FRSA has long been considered questionable as any indicator of notability at Afd. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I have with American Banker is it's a trade organ. As a generally accepted matter, while we do routinely accept trade media as RS, I can't recall a BLP ever hinging on business or trade press for N. Indeed, profiles in outlets like American Business Journals, AdAge, Pulp & Paper, etc. are generally classified as WP:ROUTINE in AFD discussions [86] for purposes of establishing N. Moreover, like most trade organs, American Banker routinely publishes advertorial and sponsored content [87] and -- without having access to the actual article on American Banker (as opposed to a Gale text archive) -- we have no idea if this is that. (I do, however, appreciate that this is a charged topic and want to be sensitive of individual proclivities related to this subject and hope this isn't taken as an indictment of anyone's fidelity here, but only as an open discussion point.) Chetsford (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can see what you're saying, but it is a bylined 1300 word profile. Also, the ad you linked really is quite clearly distinguishable from a news article, and as best I can tell isn't even indexed in the online American Banker database I am looking at (while the profile of Malmgren is). Most of the discussions I see in recent (<10 years) AfDs consider interviews/publications by the subject/routine coverage of companies. IMO this is quite different, but ymmv. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the same thing as you but it's definitely an edge case and I totally understand where you're coming from. Chetsford (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At EBSCO, it is listed as "Adviser on Banking Gives Bush a Trader's-Eye View. (cover story)"; 2 page article with a full text word count of 1444; with 1 color photograph, 2 black and white photographs. At ProQuest 249815310, it is listed as a "Feature" in the section "Washington", so I think it's safe to say it isn't sponsored or advertising content. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But a trade organ. Chetsford (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reddit appears to be canvassing this discussion so the closing admin should be aware of that. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

collapsed seemingly AI generated WP:WALLOFTEXT with seemingly hallucinated links. See also WP:LLMCIR and WP:LLMDISCLOSE Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Official Website — drpippamalmgren.com (Her direct professional website: her books, speeches, awards, past government roles.) 2. Forbes Contributor Page (archived) She used to write for Forbes about economics and global risk. 3. World Economic Forum (WEF) • She’s listed as a speaker at multiple Davos events. • Example: World Economic Forum 2019 Agenda Contributor 4. Financial Times / Bloomberg • She’s often quoted or featured in discussions about global financial risks. 5. Books Published She’s a published author (which is a big deal for Wikipedia notability): • Signals: How Everyday Signs Can Help Us Navigate the World’s Turbulent Economy (2016) • The Infinite Leader (2020, co-authored) • Geopolitics for Investors (2015) 6. Past U.S. Government Role • She served as a Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy under George W. Bush. • This was at the National Economic Council (NEC) — pretty serious White House experience. 7. The Economist / The Spectator • She’s given interviews and written pieces for these major publications. 8. Award Recognition • Named a Leading Woman in Tech by We Are Tech Women (2019). • Recognized for her work on risk management and geopolitical strategy. 9. Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs) • She’s been involved in discussions and panels at Chatham House, one of the top think tanks globally.

Extra Interesting Fact • She’s very plugged into “Fourth Industrial Revolution” circles (AI, blockchain, digital currencies, etc.). • In early 2022, she made headlines predicting that a new global financial system would emerge from chaos — tied to crypto and programmable money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:a021:b9df:7565:fd7b:b83a:f7fc (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/pippa-malmgren

https://web.archive.org/web/20240126131022/https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/pippa-malmgren

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/dr-pippa-malmgren/

https://web.archive.org/web/20220305100339/https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/dr-pippa-malmgren/

https://www.ft.com/content/3b859f58-38e7-11e5-bbd1-b37bc06f590c

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/546122/signals-by-pippa-malmgren/

https://web.archive.org/web/20230130094308/https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/546122/signals-by-pippa-malmgren/

https://www.koganpage.com/product/the-infinite-leader-9781789665998

https://web.archive.org/web/20230130094459/https://www.koganpage.com/product/the-infinite-leader-9781789665998

https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/research/foundation/2015/geopolitics-for-investors

https://web.archive.org/web/20240101052124/https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/research/foundation/2015/geopolitics-for-investors

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2020-11-04/malmgren-says-china-wants-biden-to-win-video

https://web.archive.org/web/20240101052124/https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/research/foundation/2015/geopolitics-for-investors

https://www.ft.com/content/8dff78e4-9c24-11e9-b8ce-8b459ed04726

https://web.archive.org/web/20201105053035/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2020-11-04/malmgren-says-china-wants-biden-to-win-video

https://wearetechwomen.com/techwomen100-awards-winners-2019/

https://web.archive.org/web/20201216094804/https://wearetechwomen.com/techwomen100-awards-winners-2019/

https://www.chathamhouse.org/events/all/online-event-are-we-ready-next-global-crisis

https://web.archive.org/web/20230414183228/https://www.chathamhouse.org/events/all/online-event-are-we-ready-next-global-crisis

https://web.archive.org/web/20220425151218/https://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-white-house-advisor-predicts-193241639.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:a021:b9df:7565:fd7b:b83a:f7fc (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it is lovely that you seemingly copied and pasted the raw output of LLM chatbot response, most of these links don't exist and the only one that does (The penguin book) has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Even if these links did lead somewhere (as has been said already) WP:GNG/WP:NBIO requires more than being quoted in articles on other topics or else being at events/on panels. It requires in depth coverage in independent reliable sources, about the subject. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on canvassing. In addition to Cakelot1's note, it appears even some established Wikipedians have been directly contacted off-WP with exhortations related to this AfD (no direct links per WP:OUTING). I would suggest that, in the absence of the clearest and most unambiguous Delete/Keep determinations, the closer consider a No Consensus close on grounds of discussion spoilation. That will allow the discussion to be reopened fresh in a month or two. Chetsford (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources Isaidnoway posted, I'm somewhat troubled by the American Banker source. Any WP:SIGCOV must also be WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject to count towards notability, and much of the American Banker article is filled with what Malmgren has to say about herself, rather than an independent reporter writing that about her, and this gives me some pause. In other AfDs I have participated in (both biographies and companies) I have seen similar articles being dismissed as not being independent of the subject. The Mondaq article is an interview, clearly enough; the RUSI coverage looks fine, though I'll note my general scepticism towards sources by think tanks. The three shrinkflation sources are mentions without sigcov (and the NPR article is partly an interview of Malmgren), and so is the Bookseller article (and I don't think that a "Book of the Year" award would satisfy ANYBIO#1 anyways). The Financial Times source given by Eddie891 seems to be the best source at hand. This leaves arguments for NSCHOLAR#7 on which I am ambivalent, and overall I don't find myself entirely convinced that Malmgren passes WP:BASIC. On the other hand, I would be fine if the article is written on the basis of the RUSI, American Banker and Financial Times sources (the material would pass WP:V in such an article). A rather weak delete but I wouldn't object to the article being kept either.
For avoidance of doubt, I note that I have not been contacted by any of the people involved in the canvassing efforts mentioned above. Java Hurricane 06:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDEPENDENT has nothing to do with how often a subject is quoted in the source. Profiles of this type often include extensive direct quotes to flavor the text with the subject's words. There's absolutely no reason to doubt it was authored by an "an independent reporter". Feoffer (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This topic is becoming increasingly relevant in the zeitgeist which makes it's nomination for deletion suspicious. Why would we remove a page that people are increasingly trying to find? The fact that the removal is controversial alone should be enough to keep it. We are not supposed to gatekeep or editorialize our content. This removal smells editorial. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=pippa%20malmgren&hl=en N1ywb (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We base our decisions on whether or not to have independent articles not on if something is in the zeitgeist (see WP:ITSPOPULAR), nor because editors think it important (WP:ITSIMPORTANT); nor because lots of people are searching on google for it (see WP:GOOGLEHITS). Nor do we void discussions because some editors think it's controversial (see WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT). We base the decisions on our existing Policies and guidelines, and in this case that seems to be a failing of WP:NOTABILITY. If you want to know why WP:N exists see WP:WHYN. I will also remind you that AFDs are not votes and keep/delete comments are weighted based on their basis in policy. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well pointed. Not an editor issue, but a policy matter. There is clearly something wrong with the policies if it is allowing for such an absurd to be justified. Here is an opportunity for the editors to be the change and suggest the policies are reviewed. And question yourselves: How low are you willing to go because a policy tells you to ? 2405:6E00:2455:483D:6C47:75FF:FE79:ABAF (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an opportunity for the editors to be the change and suggest the policies are reviewed. Incorrect. An AfD discussion is not the forum for policy review. Notability has guidelines anyway, but there are policies as well. JFHJr (㊟) 03:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is not the place for this discussion, so this will be my last reply. Not sure if you did not understand the point or don't want to... I will make it clearer: My point is that editors are justifying being obtuse and negating facts because of policies. Policies that won't change themselves. They are the ones that should see that and push, in the right forums, for the policies to be fixed. 2405:6E00:2455:483D:6C47:75FF:FE79:ABAF (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are good reasons for WP:GNG, most experienced editors know that and are likely to have no appetite to significantly change it. This is especially the case for [[[WP:BLPs]]. Generally editors advocating for change have little experience with Wikipedia and/or misunderstand it's purpose. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per a dearth of WP:SIGCOV sufficient to psas the high bar of WP:BLPSOURCES. Most of the sourcing is PR ('trade'), WP:PRIMARY and MENTIONs. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi's reasoning. If we are going off policy, there is not enough WP:RS WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SIGCOV. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still not convinced that she doesn't meet NSCHOLAR C7. She has been quite widely cited as an economic expert/commentator. Examples of articles based on her comments are Australian Financial Review (2016), The Irish Times (2013), The Australian (2020), Financial Times (2017), BBC (2016), The Times (2017). It is also definitely possible to write an encyclopedic and verifiable article on her; in addition to sources like the FT profile I linked above, we have a number of smaller articles chronicling things she did, i.e. [88]. I also don't think the American Banker article is the most amazing source ever, but I also really don't think it fully PR. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obvious keep. Probably should do something about user Chetsford and their sockpuppets that keep proposing these deletions. Suppafly (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
/sigh/... I'm assuming that I'm somehow one of the sockpuppets that "keep[s] proposing these deletions" since I PRODed Cordell Hull Institute (which you also created). And yet I'm voting Keep here. What do you make of that? Please drop the unsubstantiated aspersions, and focus on content. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't actually thinking of you, and don't care about the cordell hull article, I don't think I even looked at the rfd after noticing that their site isn't active anymore. I will publicly apologize for casting aspersions though. This cabal of people proposing deletions for anything that the UFO crowd on reddit find interesting are quite annoying though. I think the UFO people are silly, but these anti-UFO people are worse and their dishonestly in these discussions are is downright harmful. Suppafly (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about WP:AGF is that it requires you to Assume good faith, which accusing a bunch of unrelated people of being in a cabal isn't. If you're incapable of making comments without imagining people who disagree with you being part a conspiracy, I would recommend you don't make said comments. AFDs are, after all, not a SOAPBOXs for you thoughts on other editors, but for discussion of the possible deletion of the article grounded in policy (something that I note, thus far in this discussion, you haven't done). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably should do something about user Chetsford and their sockpuppets that keep proposing these deletions." Suppafly -- for your benefit, and those of the canvassed legions, I'll grant myself the indulgence of one off-topic response to the accusations being made against me off-WP (some of which were mentioned on last night's edition of Coast to Coast AM [89]) and migrating here:

(a) I am not a sockpuppet,

(b) I do not edit Wikipedia 19 hours per day, 7 days per week [note I average 15 daily edits; using surveyed averages, that equates to about 45 minutes of daily editing],

(c) I am not being paid by the Skeptical Inquirer nor am I in any contact with Susan Gerlich,

(d) I am not a CIA asset, a government-controlled AI, and I was not involved in the JFK assassination; nor am I an agent of a breakaway civilization trying to suppress antigravitic technology,

(e) I do not work for Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Klaus Schwab; I am not a member of the Bilderberg Group nor am I a 33rd degree Mason

I am happy to address any other questions on my Talk page in order to keep this discussion on topic (the retention or deletion of this article). You can also request a sock/meatpuppet investigation at WP:SPI, an investigation as to whether or not I'm a Pleiadian at WP:AN, or an investigation as to if I'm a CIA plant at WP:DRR. All of these options provide you ample opportunity to freely raise your concerns outside of here, AfD. Chetsford (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. While there was canvassing to this AfD, many of the keep !votes included policy-based reasons, and there were only two delete !votes, one of which was "weak" and the other based on the current references in the article. Ultimately, the AfD nominator agreed with the keep rationales, has, as a result of this discussion, identified references establishing notability, and is working on a new version that improves the referencing problems in the current version. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Malmgren

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

The late Harald Malmgren has catapulted to awareness in the wild corners of the internet populated by UFO enthusiasts due to his whacky claims about marauding space aliens. He was a minor staffer in the JFK administration and later worked as a financial advisor, though UFO enthusiasts on social media have recently reimagined him as the man who saved the world from nuclear apocalypse during the Cuban Missile Crisis (e.g. [90]) (based, apparently, on Malmgren's claims of having beaten Curtis LeMay in a staring contest).

His elegantly WP:REFBOMBed BLP consists of 24 sources, each of which is either non-RS or non-WP:SIGCOV. Large segments -- containing illustrious assertions about his educational pedigree and globetrotting accomplishments -- are totally unreferenced.

A standard WP:BEFORE finds many bylined articles by the man and mentions in non-RS media like sldinfo.com, The Daily Mail, and NewsNation (which we are proscribed from using as a source for any coverage touching the topic of UFOs under our WP:UFONATION consensus). Note that the obit that is, as of this timestamp, reference 1, appears to be a paid or reader-submitted obit. Chetsford (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC); edited 07:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment his first book, International Economic Peacekeeping in Phase II got a few reviews: [91], [92], [93]. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 07:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. While I'm not sure a three-quarters page review in Agricultural History counts as "significant critical attention" under the WP:AUTHOR criterion, it's helpful to have the additional context for !voters in either direction. Chetsford (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree it's definitely not enough by itself, but took me a while to find so I thought I'd link here in case anyone else finds more. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there's also a few reviews of his edited work Pacific Basin Development. The American Interests: [94], [95], [96], [97]. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, England, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete While I agree with the assessment that the page may be refbombed with non-rs or WP:SIGCOV qualifying links, I do worry that the nominator appears to have an agenda against the BLP subject based off of their analysis using colorful language such as "wild corners of the internet populated by UFO enthusiasts due to his whacky claims about marauding space aliens." Would caution the reliability of any unsubstantiated claims by the nominator.

Brenae wafato (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion nomination appears to be a blatant attempt to erase a distinguished public servant's documented career immediately following his UFO-related statements, this is a troubling pattern of historical revisionism that should have no place on Wikipedia. The nominator dismissively mischaracterizes Malmgren as a "minor staffer" despite his serving four presidents, heading Pentagon economics groups, and holding Senate-confirmed ambassador positions. The deletion rationale ignores overwhelming evidence of notability: his papers republished in landmark economic collections, his work cited by the Supreme Court, his joint chairmanship with former Secretary of State Eagleburger, and his advisory roles to multiple heads of state. Most concerning is the invocation of special "UFONATION" rules when standard notability criteria are unquestionably met. This nomination reveals a clear bias against individuals who speak on certain topics regardless of their documented historical significance. Wikipedia should not be a platform for selectively erasing inconvenient historical figures.

I would not be surprised if this is the work of Guerilla Skeptics. OliverWX (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)— OliverWX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I wouldn't be surprised either. I find the timing of this deletion disturbing. Kef71 (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)— Kef71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep this page. Looks like a blatant attempt to censor meaningful and accurate information. 207.172.46.56 (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that. The blatant disregard of impartiality displayed by the nominator by a prejudging, defaming statement like "due to his whacky claims about marauding space aliens" is IMO not appropriate for a wikipedia editor and part of the problem why wikipedia faces so much criticism.

And as others have mentioned, it seems everything else than coincidental that this page of H.M. gets nominated for deletion together with the page of his daughter within 24h of a documentation where discusses the controversial topic of UFO's/UAP's.

The topic of UAP or any other controversial topic can't and must not be a reason for disregarding his accomplishments in the past. I agree that this page needs improvement with better sources, but this is no reason for deletion. KEEP. 2001:9E8:4DE7:9C00:C4AC:E82D:22E2:DE7D (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources about this individual that do meet the guidelines. If they are not currently present, then they need to be added. However, that is not the specified reason for nomination of deletion and therefore should not be considered in the voting process. It can be argued that everyone has "whacky" views by someone else out there and if that was the criteria then nobody would have a Wiki page. Instead of deletion, there should be a annotation/citation speaking to his views to give context to who Mr. Malmgren was. Deletion of this page based on comments this individual made on a podcast does not at all land within the spirit of the Wikipedia project. HumbleWikiMan (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voters should be aware that you are potentially a member of the so-called "Guerilla Skeptics", a group dedicated to editing and deleting the pages of figures who make UFO-related statements. Harald Malmgren's credentials and significant political contributions have been attested by and in a multitude of credible sources in several government websites, which clearly show him to be more than a "minor staffer" or a "financial advisor":

archives.gov (AAD) – 1974 State-Dept cable logs his official visit to Canberra (“VISIT OF AMBASSADOR HARALD MALMGREN”), confirming his ambassadorial status in overseas trade diplomacy.

congress.gov (official legislative portal) records his presidential nomination and Senate confirmation as Deputy Special Representative for Trade Negotiations (ambassadorial rank) in April–May 1972.

federalreserve.gov – a 2008 oral-history interview with Kenneth Guenther recounts Malmgren’s stint as acting Deputy USTR, his attempted elevation, and eventual departure—useful color on his career trajectory.

history.state.gov holds several Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) volumes that log Malmgren’s negotiations as follows:

1968 poultry-trade (“Chicken War”) talks, naming him on the STR delegation.

1974 Council on International Economic Policy review of grain-reserve policy, listing him as Deputy STR and senior adviser.

cia.gov declassified distribution list (1970s) shows “Ambassador Harald Malmgren, Deputy Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, 1800 G Street NW,” confirming both his diplomatic rank and office.

List of some of his books and articles includes but is not limited to the following (in no particular order):

1. International Economic Peacekeeping in Phase II (New York: Quadrangle Books for the Atlantic Council, 276 pp.), 1973

2. Trade Wars or Trade Negotiations? Nontariff Barriers and Economic Peacekeeping (Washington DC: Atlantic Council, 101 pp.), 1970

3. Pacific Basin Development: The American Interests (Lexington MA: Lexington Books for the ODC, 148 pp.), 1972

4. “Trade Policy and Trade Negotiations in the 1980s,” in The U.S. and the World Economy (Quadrangular Forum series), 1981

5. International Order for Public Subsidies (London: Trade Policy Research Centre, Thames Essays No. 11, 74 pp.), 1977

6. “Perestroika: The Metamorphosis of the Soviet Economy”, The World Economy (book-review essay), 1989

7. “Canada, the United States and the World Economy” (with Marie-Josée Drouin), 1981

8. “Coming Trade Wars? Neo-Mercantilism and Foreign Policy”, Foreign Policy No. 1: 115-143, 1970-1971 168.187.123.141 (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both current nominations for deletion have come within the past 24 hours, conspicuously immediately after the release of Harald's appearance on the American Alchemy podcast, where he discussed unconventional topics. Is the push to delete his wiki page because of this interview? 2603:7080:B700:7D63:BA48:84A3:1A35:68D8 (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is ZERO reason for the deletion of this page and no matter how many times it is deleted, it will be brought back and resurrected. 68.188.206.150 (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, nonsense like this is why I stopped supporting Wikipedia financially. Thehun06 (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC) — Thehun06 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Financial support has nothing to do with notability of this article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Financial support has absolutely something to do with this deletion request. As long as you allow a small, unscientific, dogmatic group of people to run amok on a project that is by and large supported by public donations, the financial support of said project should be called in question. 2A00:1E:8A02:D01:57E5:A688:970E:BDCA (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My sentiments exactly. Well said. 79.131.108.226 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same 98.186.194.246 (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same user nominated to have Dr. Pippa Malmgren's Wikipedia page deleted also. We can call a spade a spade, less than 24 hours after Harald Malmgren's final interview airs this user nominates both pages to be deleted, its expressing clear bias against the Malmgrens and a shameless attempt at censorship and to belittle their characters. CrunchyDolphin (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in addition to the reviews of his works that I linked above, it looks like there is substantial coverage of his diplomatic work (see, for instance [98], paragraph here) and this article about his scholarship. I think there's enough to establish GNG/NSCHOLAR between all this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion seems somewhat Draconian and smacks of censorship - fuck sakes, Newton believed in the occult, I don't see anyone calling for Isaac Newton's page to be deleted on the grounds he believed in a bunch of dodgy shit as well as figured out gravity - but I do agree, keeping it factual, tied to verified published articles, not YouTube and X sources, definitely not a bad idea and somewhat overdue.

Online UFO circles have reinvented this man based wholly on his later "disclosures" concerning UFOs and that does need to be addressed.

Already these people are threatening to hold Wikipedia editors to account for crimes against humanity - here - really the matter should be referred straight to Redit where these kinds of comments are currently hosted - whole thread link here.

Definitely do agree, the whole thing needs sorting, if starting over from fresh is the easier option - do it but only on the basis its replaced. The UFO mob are going to edit it, we just have to flag it and stay on top of any re-edits.

Weird how people apparently so keen on the truth don't like anything that contradicts what they want to here but - hey ho, off to the salt mines we go.

Also can we have a block and removal of baseless accusations of anyone supporting this deletion proposition as being members of Gorilla Sceptics or whatever boogeyman this week: any accusations along these kinds of line by editors, prove it or get off the pot.

This is an incendiary subject at the best of times, please - let's not add to that by making triggering accusations of guilt by association simply through editors doing their jobs and sticking to policy.

By rights this article should be scrapped, it's riddled with inaccuracies and blatant miss truth - a do-over is a sane compromise, someone will re-start an article whether we agree on this or not: lets head that off at the pass and stick and do a factual job.

That's all we're here for, nothing else. Einheit947 (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a totally fair point, and I apologise for the "baseless accusations" I have no proof its Guerilla Skeptics.

Apologies for getting heated about the topic. I got heated due to the nomination for the deletion of this article along with Malmgrens daughter's article less than 24 hours after a 4 hour video comes out of a mans claims on his deathbed. I find that extremely disrespectful and it does seem an agenda is being pushed to say the least. OliverWX (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Mr. Malmgren wrote the page himself, so I think starting over is necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hmalmgren/sandbox 172.59.231.189 (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Oliver - we just have to watch what we say, r/UFOs are tracking this discussion, so the minute one uses the name of that group - that's it, it's a fact as far as that sub is concerned - proponents for deletion - even editing - are just up to no good and enemies of democracy or, whatever other bug they woke up with firmly up their backsides with today.

Today that means its it's us they're gunning for, and - as I relay - they are talking holding us to account, whatever that entails, and that's all the veiled threat we need to get something done about them.

I suggest we collectively report their behaviour to the Reddit platform, screen grab the whole debacle - it's only going to get worse if we don't nip this thing in the bud, now.

The article, it just needs doing over and clearing out the weeds. We should really just have done that rather than call for a deletion, it's just attracting fire whereas straight editing to guidelines and non of the UFO lot would have noticed anything.

It's disingenuous leaving this as Malmgren's legacy - let's just get the facts straight and keep them that way. Einheit947 (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Report their behaviour to the Reddit platform".

Kindly showcase the forensic evidence you have obtained against users of Reddit, and the "Reddit rule" that has been broken. It appears you don't like what many Wikipedia users have to say, therefore you are fighting against it based on your emotion. That is not how online encyclopaedias purport to operate, particularly this one. KushKushyKushier (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to strongly disagree with your characterization of the Reddit discussion, which I initiated and originally posted myself.

The issue is not about UFO beliefs but about the preservation of historical record for a notable public servant with a distinguished career. Your suggestion that we should "collectively report" Reddit users for discussing a public Wikipedia deletion process is deeply concerning and runs counter to Wikipedia's principles.

The timing of this deletion nomination that immediately follows Malmgren's posthumous interview—clearly suggests motivation beyond mere content guidelines. If editorial improvements were needed, standard wiki processes like ^{[citation needed]} tags would be appropriate, not complete deletion of a significant historical figure's documented career. OliverWX (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The book reviews above are fine for AUTHOR. Rest is discussions of a political career. The UFO stuff is interesting I suppose, neither here nor there. Oaktree b (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No legit grounds for deletion. Keep the page ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hempanicker (talk • contribs) 16:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The timing is obviously linked to the release of a controversial interview. That shouldn't be a reason to erase an article that has existed since 2015. GalacticGardener (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That the editor/reviewer talks about "catapulting" to awareness due to his recent discussions on UAP reveals the editor's bias. They rushed to delete, as well as his daughter. Unacceptable. The editor/reviewer should be banned from any further editing given this is now considered a scholarly field of inquiry. TruthBeGood (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am not seeing any evidence of "his whacky claims about marauding space aliens". Where do I find this information to review? This seems like a biased opinion without supporting evidence. NIPeditor (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Malmgren is an important figure in economics and history. His claims about UFOs are not relevant to his importance. Malmgren should have an article on wikipedia. The article could include statements he has made about UFOs, but including that information does not endorse any particular view on UFOs or anything else. The fact that the UFO community is extremely interested in Malmgren should have no bearing on this article. I have used and supported wikipedia for many years. The point of wikipedia is to provide information on topics and people that are significant. The information about what a person has done or said should be presented in a neutral way that allows readers to draw their own conclusions. Wikipedia should not be censored. Readers should be presented with information so they can decide for themselves whether Malmgren's statements about UFOs are true or made up. 4.35.159.225 (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calling him a “minor staffer” and ridiculing his UAP commentary with phrases like “whacky claims about marauding space aliens” and “wild corners of the internet.” is loaded and mocking and violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV). 1.41.26.224 (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Harald Malmgren plainly satisfies Wikipedia’s notability criteria under WP:BIO (significant public positions) and WP:GNG (coverage in reliable, independent sources):

1. High-level government service: Served as senior economic adviser under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford; confirmed by the U.S. Senate to an ambassador-rank Trade Negotiations post (congress.gov entry for his April 1972 nomination).

2. Academic and policy impact: Authored International Economic Peacekeeping in Phase II and Trade Wars or Trade Negotiations?, each reviewed in peer-reviewed journals (e.g. JSTOR stable URL 24356809 for an Agricultural History review; stable URL 44834257 for a Journal of Conflict Resolution review).

3. Independent media coverage:

The Irish Times profile “Meet the Malmgrens: the extraordinary family U.S. presidents turned to” provides extensive biographical detail and context to his career (IrishTimes.com/meet-the-malmgrens-the-extraordinary-family-us-presidents-turned-to-1.3284559).

News.com.au ran a feature on his post-government work and UAP commentary, passing WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT standards.

4. Primary archival documentation:

National Archives cable logs confirm his ambassadorial status during a 1974 Canberra visit (archives.gov – “VISIT OF AMBASSADOR HARALD MALMGREN”).

Foreign Relations of the United States volumes record his leading roles in U.S.–Soviet trade and agricultural negotiations (history.state.gov volumes for 1968 “Chicken War” and 1974 grain policy).

A 2008 Federal Reserve oral-history interview (federalreserve.gov archive) cites his tenure as Acting Deputy USTR.

Neutrality and tone: The deletion nomination relies heavily on pejorative language (“whacky claims,” “wild corners of the internet”), breaching WP:NPOV. Whether or not one accepts his UAP statements has no bearing on his decades of documented public service.

Policy-guided improvement, not deletion: Any lingering issues with “refbombed” or non-RS sources are better handled by cleanup under WP:ATD and WP:VERIFY—trimming unsupported material and replacing it with the wealth of high-quality references already cited—rather than erasing a well-established article.

For these reasons, Harald Malmgren’s article should be retained and improved, not deleted. 1.41.26.224 (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-

As other have shown, he was a high level government official that worked in multiple administrations and also had a good amount of peer-reviewed academic work coming from a multitude of reliable sources.

This editor on the other hand is anti-anything with "UFOs" and the (TWO) nomination(s) for deletion is suspiciously timed to news coming about an interview with the subject matter involving "UFOs"

Admins should investigate this, along with other AfDs from this editor, for being created in bad faith. Eamesheard (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Initial and secondary deletion requests appear to be in bad faith. The biography is easy to improve with better sources:

CIA.gov sourced distribution list - #53 Ambassador Harald Malmgren - page 2

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79S01091A000300010009-9.pdf

.

United States International Trade Representative

Office of the Historian - Foreign relations participant Harald Malmgren STR

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v09/d363

.

International Trade Senate Hearing Witness

Senate Hearing before the Subcommittee on International Trade - Public Witness Harald Malmgren, Malmgren, Inc.

https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HRG98-1056.pdf

.

Work cited for Nixon, Ford and Japanese manufacturers, contemporaneous to Carter

Congressional Record - Extension of Remarks. Harald Malmgren activity as an international trade negotiator, quoting from the article, "When Jimmy Carter became president, the Japanese cartel faced a minefield of proceedings and investigations, and in 1977, five cartel members-Hitachi, Mitsubishi Electric, Sanyo, Sharp, and Toshiba-hired former deputy special trade representative Harald Malmgren to solve their problems.

Malmgren who had served under Nixon and Ford and had helped Nixon prepare for a trade summit with Japan, was well equipped to earn his $300,000 fee-and he quickly delivered. As the Japan Economic Journal reported: "In three short months, Mr. Malmgren was able to talk to all sides involved in the dispute, and work out a com- promise .... "

That compromise, later known as the Orderly Marketing Agreement , limited Japanese TV exports to the United States to 1.5 million units a year for three years. but it allowed the Japanese to use their newly acquired U.S. manufacturing base to fill orders that exceeded the quota. - p. 29008

https://www.congress.gov/101/crecb/1990/10/12/GPO-CRECB-1990-pt20-4-3.pdf

.

Listed as "eminently qualified expert" in Congressional Joint Hearing

Congressional Joint Hearing - THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY AND WORLD ECONOMY WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1980, page 3: The witnesses that we have assembled for this morning's hearings are eminently qualified experts who can help us deal with these issues.

They are Dr. Robert Baldwin, of the University of Wisconsin; Dr. David Cole, of the University of Michigan; Ms. Maryann Keller who is with Paine Webber Mitchell Hutchins; and Dr. Harald Malmgren, who is a former deputy special representative for trade negotiations.

We welcome this distinguished panel.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-96jhrg64892O/pdf/CHRG-96jhrg64892O.pdf

.

Working for Nixon

Nixon Library - U.S. CONCURRENT COUNTERPART MEETING PARTICIPANTS May 31, 1973

Kjarvalsstadir, Reykjavik, Iceland

~Harald Malmgren, Deputy Special Representative

https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/virtuallibrary/documents/PDD/1973/100%20May%2016-31%201973.pdf

.

All of the above was quick to source from a simple Google search. His academic work is referenced in places such as Notre Dame, Princeton, Harvard...

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1353&context=jleg

https://swh.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles90-92/Starr_1991_Middle_Class_and_National_Health_Reform.pdf

https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jol/wp-content/uploads/sites/86/2016/02/HLL108_crop.pdf Gremchild (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are we supposed to act in good faith when the deletion of this wiki entry is obviously in bath faith?

Weak ~~delete~~ Keep With largely the same caveats as Brenae wafato above. While this afd appears to have become a lightning rod for "skeptics vs believers" UFO discourse the key question before us is whether high-quality sources indicating notability exist. With the refbombing issue above and the absence of SIGCOV that would indicate deletion although I could be persuaded otherwise if good-quality sources to establish notability could be presented. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223, can I ask what about the sources I linked you find lacking? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually missed your comments. Reviewing now. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK having looked at the links above I think the case for weak notability under WP:NAUTHOR is met. Article cleanup doesn't require deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong trivial and easy keep: NOTE -- AFD creator @Chetsford: has spammed and bridaged this AFD:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Haral_Malmgren

The timing of this in alignment with the release of a posthumous release of a video stating the USA is engaged in a UFO cover up after being found notable in the 2015 AFD is unfortunate. This article had been on my eye for a while to expand as he's so interesting and notable. Trivially expansive sourcing, and whatever the fate of this article, expect to find it right back in Article space shortly with sourcing as comprehensive as any of the articles I've worked on. We are all nothing if not slaves to reality and it's time for this comical assault on anyone who says even the tiniest "pro UFO stuff" as a minute tiny fraction of their life to be ended on this site.

Each of these excludes the terms "aliens" or "UFOs":

Expansive sourcing exists on regular Google search (limited to pre-2025 as well).

Expansive sourcing exists on Google News.

Expansive sourcing exists on Google Books.

Expansive sourcing exists on Google Scholar.

Such research should be compulsory before nominating for deletion. Strong trivial and easy keep. As I said: delete, and I'll rebuild it with double the sourcing as soon as I have a moment. Reality wins this fight, not the Fringe Noticeboard. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Google searches you point to list a variety of non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources such as bylined articles, or sources from non-RS like NewsNation (which is non-usable per WP:UFONATION. You can't just do a Google search for a guy's name and say "there must be sources - I got a lotta hits!" Chetsford (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then suggest that the article have additional sources, rather than delete the entire article, which has been on Wikipedia since 2015. Ophello (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Beyond the issues raised above, I believe having an article on the topic serves an important public service as a point to collect the contrary parts of the Malmgren story. If the current article does not contain a balanced view, that is an opportunity to improve it, as there are few other locations on the 'net where such information would naturally collect. As always, articles should be fixed, not deleted. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the question of whether someone's views are accurate or "whacky" really has no bearing on the question of notability. Similarly, the popularity that someone might have in "wild corners of the internet" has no bearing on the question of notability. Per Very Polite Person there's plenty of sourcing out there and there's no question that the article could be improved. Deletion seems out of the question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales - Very Polite Person's !vote is a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. They point to Google searches and don't list a single actual source. Per WP:BEFORE, I did the same thing prior to AfD but actually read the results. These are things like bylined articles (fails WP:INDEPENDENT) or articles on non-RS (e.g. NewsNation which can't be used for UFO adjacent topics per WP:UFONATION. Punching someone's name into a search engine and getting a lot of hits does not demonstrate "plenty of sourcing". Chetsford (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This attempt to scrub Harald Malmgren from Wikipedia is so heavy-handed that Jimmy Wales himself stepped in to comment in favor of keeping this article. You should really think about what that says about your choices here.

Also, I will briefly comment on the absurdity of treating NewsNation as an illegitimate source when it comes to UFOs/UAP but a legitimate source when it comes to any other topic. It should be allowed in general.

But even if it isn't, here's the RS you claim doesn't exist:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/meet-the-malmgrens-the-extraordinary-family-us-presidents-turned-to-1.3284559 Somekindofmutant (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the nature of the original request to delete shows extreme bias and lack of any reasonable objectivity. Allowing such intemperate censorship to succeed risks making this resource (Wikipedia) irrelevant.

Fjd2PhD (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Deletion seems out of the question"

It's somewhat draconian, absolutely agreed. However, the article is a complete pigs ear. We've already got a witch hunt going on about this over on reddit - now a former Moderator is editorialising you.

They've got users riled up demanding editors be called to account for their actions, very clear threats of reprisals should we not concede to the UFO communities version of Harald Malmgren: I wholly agree, deletion is ridiculous but are we really going to be bullied by a full on mob...?

We should be petitioning reddit for take-downs effective immediately as well as punitive actions against the agitators at work here - they're not joking some of them really do live in the kind of world they prattle on about - its us in the firing line.

Are you going to support us or throw us under the bus here: this article needs serious fixing and these UFO nits are equating our work with censorship.

Your support would be appreciated here. Einheit947 (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be balanced. That Guerilla Skeptics are bullying areas they think of as pseudo-science when ACTUAL science is being done on the matter questions YOUR motives. Act in a balanced way and you won't attract the "mob" as you call it (your use of the term questions your own attempt tb bias with emotion rather than logic). TruthBeGood (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your rhetoric about "witch hunts" and trying to petition Reddit for "take-downs" of legitimate discussion reveals a concerning lack of understanding about both Wikipedia's purpose and the current state of UAP/UFO research.

Your dismissive attitude toward what you call "the UFO community" ignores that this field has tons of declassified documents that include a lot of evidence towards "something" going on, which I am guessing you haven't even been bothered to look.

Please stop being dogmatic. OliverWX (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please look into @Chetsford's past nominations and edits. His use of terms like "whacky" and his constant editorial on figures to do with ufology shows actions in bad faith with an agenda. 206.121.189.142 (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 01:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You realize that there was legislation demanding the DoD reveal what they know about Non-human intelligence right? For reference: https://www.congress.gov/amendment/118th-congress/senate-amendment/2610/textThis gentleman has the relevant experiences and clearances of someone who would know. Wikipedia's reputation is damaged if they delete articles because of personal bias when there is budding evidence to suggest he may be telling the truth. That is ugly censorship. 2600:1014:B051:5656:2C62:D6FF:D22D:9467 (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Funny how this guy asks for this page and Pippa's page to be deleted too right after Harald's 4hr death bed video drops on YouTube. Not suspicious at all. P Jp0202 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Malmgren is a well-known, impactful individual who served in 4 different US Presidential Administrations. I would suggest one look into whether the wiki-user chatsford should have their editor rights removed. This is clear censorship and I see this user is obsessed with trying to delete multiple individuals related to Congress’ UAP legislation topic Observer157 (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Malmgren was a senior advisor to four US Presidents, Pentagon insider with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Oxford-educated economist whose work was cited by the Supreme Court.

According to policy and common sense, there are zero legitimate grounds for deletion. The timing is suspect - a man with unimpeachable credentials who held positions with access to highly classified information makes UFO-related statements, and suddenly his entire documented career is nominated for deletion. Unimpeachable references will accumulate as time passes. It is surely not the right time to delete. There are no grounds for deletion.

Keep Malmgren becoming notable for reasons not covered in his Wiki article is not a reason for deleting that article. Rather, the article should contain accurate information about him rather than the misinformation alleged to be spread elsewhere. If there are problems with the quality of his article, it should be improved. It would be preferable even to restrict who can edit it rather than to simply delete it. 2601:243:CF82:D350:9F1F:5DAD:44FF:B22 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for obvious reasons, it's a little ridiculous that it was nominated a 2nd time. Suppafly (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notorious hoaxes, delusions and hysterias all have a place in Wikipedia, as long as the article is properly written. Furthermore, we collectively have no credentials to independently judge Malmngren's claims nor is Wikipedians' place to do so. Subramanian ^talk 16:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! Y’all have no souls & are actually pathetic trying to delete digital access to an actual hero’s wiki page?! Access to (just part) of the digital legacy of apparently one of the most humble men who actually stopped nuclear war? The genie has been out of the bottle about NHI/aliens/UAP for a while, so what are yall even trying to suppress anymore? Go cowardly poke buttons on your computers elsewhere- this page is staying up- his daughter’s page better stay up as well. 73.115.16.180 (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Valid concerns are raised above about the content of the article. These do not affect the notability of the subject. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Harald Malmgren meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines under WP:GNG and WP:BIO due to his significant, well-documented contributions as a scholar, diplomat, and senior aide to Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford. Contrary to the nomination’s claim that the article’s 24 sources are non-reliable or lack significant coverage (WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV), several references provide substantial, independent coverage in reliable sources. For example, Malmgren’s book International Economic Peacekeeping in Phase II (Quadrangle Books, 1972) is a peer-reviewed work cited by governments globally and discussed in academic reviews, establishing his influence in trade policy. Additionally, sources like The New York Times and The Washington Post (e.g., articles from the 1970s covering his role in the Trade Act of 1974 and the Tokyo Round negotiations) offer significant coverage of his diplomatic work, meeting WP:SIGCOV.

The accusation of WP:REFBOMB is overstated. While the article may include some weaker sources, this is addressable through editing to remove or replace them with stronger ones, per WP:ATD. Malmgren’s roles as a senior aide and advisor to foreign leaders and CEOs are verifiable through primary and secondary sources, independent of recent UFO-related claims, which are a minor part of the article. The nomination’s focus on these fringe associations risks WP:BIAS, as it sidelines Malmgren’s decades-long, well-documented career. Deleting a longstanding article (created in 2015) immediately after the man’s death and release of a deathbed video discussing a controversial topic would undermine Wikipedia’s goal of neutral, comprehensive coverage. This request is highly suspect and emotionally laden from its initial wording “whacky” and “marauding space aliens”, is evidentially intentional mockery. KushKushyKushier (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would this be considered for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:b061:c61f:799c:b52c:7f11:5d74 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DO. NOT. Delete this!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.93.59 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly believe that this article is notable under Wikipedia notability guidelines. And it is being unfairly targeted based on editor’s personal biases. Wikitehedia (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some editing out of fawning language praising his work. There are clearly attempts to make him look important by mentioning he worked with famous and important people, and got degrees from famous colleges. That does not establish notability. Nor does writing things or having jobs. But being being a Chair at one research university and a Professor at another satisfied notability as an academic, and some of his writings appear to have the recognition to support notability. Edison (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a RS that verifies he was a named chair? And, being "a professor" does not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. Chetsford (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears that this discussion is being canvassed from at least three separate Reddit threads (1, 2, 3) so I would advise the closing admin to take that into account. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good call ArtemisiaGentileschiFan. I'd also note that none of the "Keep" arguments are policy based (e.g. "it serves a public interest" or "this article should be kept because it's being targeted by biased people", or "keep for obvious reasons", or "if you delete this I'll just rewrite it", or "keep because you all have no souls", or "keep because the timining of the nomination is disturbing", or "keep - the nominator is a secret CIA plant trying to stop UFO disclosure", [99] etc.). Chetsford (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be fair Chetsford. Some of us have been persuaded by the presence of multiple reliable source reviews of the subject's books meeting the standard for WP:NAUTHOR. This does, however, demonstrate the problem with broad canvassing and I hope the parties doing the canvassing are paying attention to this:

When you fill up an AfD with garbage arguments it becomes harder for the closer to find the actually appropriate arguments within all the chaff. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once this AfD closes the BLP will be paired-down to what can be sourced. That will be his name, date of birth/date, and the fact he wrote a couple books. There's literally nothing else here that is supported by RS. That's not the intent of NAUTHOR. Chetsford (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's spooky how poorly Chetsford is handling this issue. Malmgren's article was deemed legitimate 10 years ago. Then, less than 24 hours after his deathbed confession/interview is published, Chetsford decided to try to scrub both Malmgren and his daughter from Wikipedia. Let me help you acknowledge that, UFOs aside, he is indeed a significant character:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/meet-the-malmgrens-the-extraordinary-family-us-presidents-turned-to-1.3284559

He also has more Google Scholar citations than most modern professors despite never having been one.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=CdtkwBIAAAAJ&hl=en Somekindofmutant (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: he was apparently a professor for two years. Somekindofmutant (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop these personal attacks immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After the reddit posts, there are quite a lot of !votes here. But none of them seem to address the actual reason for nomination. The closest is Very Polite Person's keep vote, which contains four links, so if you were in a hurry, you might think it was a policy-backed argument, but a close reading of it reveals that it does not address the problem that only non-RS sources exist. VPP simply links to google searches, and implies that there's probably a good source in there somewhere even if they, personally, were unable to find one. That's obviously not enough. ApLundell (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been present on Wikipedia since 2015. If the contention is with sources, let the criticisms be based on that and recommend improvements to the article or have the article locked. The justification for its existence should not suddenly be brought into question simply because it has become popular with certain groups. Original poster is clearly biased. Ophello (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, some editors new to Wikipedia seem to be voting to "keep" the article intact, but this discussion (and any deletion discussion) is only about whether to keep an article on the subject. The content that is not cited or cited only to primary sources, will need to be greatly cut down or, after this discussion concludes, removed entirely. Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Since this page has been up since 2015, why was it noted for deletion now, if the information on the page is "innaccurate"? Is it because he just died recently? Deleting this page makes no logical sense. Pathetic. Keep this great man's page online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.216.191 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Strong Keep

I oppose the deletion of this article based on the following:

1. **Demonstrated Notability Across Multiple Domains**

  Harald Malmgren served as a senior advisor to four U.S. presidents—Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford—and held ambassador-level roles confirmed by Congress. His work influenced U.S. trade policy during pivotal moments in history, including Cold War negotiations and international economic restructuring. His involvement in global affairs is documented in government sources such as *congress.gov*, *federalreserve.gov*, *archives.gov*, and *history.state.gov*.

2. **Reliable Sources Exist**

  His books have been reviewed in academic journals and cited in publications from respected institutions. These sources meet the WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR notability standards. If some references in the article are weak, that is grounds for improvement—not deletion.

3. **Bias in the Nomination**

  The nominator’s language (“whacky claims,” “wild corners of the internet”) raises concerns of WP:NPOV violations. Wikipedia should not promote dismissiveness or editorial tone when evaluating longstanding articles on public figures.

4. **Suspicious Timing**

  This page has existed since 2015. Nominating it within 24 hours of Malmgren’s death and the release of his controversial interview creates the appearance of an ideologically motivated deletion.

5. **ATD – Fix it, Don’t Nix it**

  Weak or outdated material should be edited, trimmed, or replaced—not deleted outright. This approach aligns with WP:ATD and the mission of Wikipedia to preserve and improve informative content, not erase it.

Villageidiots1 (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article sufficiently establishes notability through sources. And that's all that needs to be said. Jtrainor (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for sure Shane O'Sullivan the 1 (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as Nom Given the intensity off-WP canvassing, I withdraw the AfD nomination. There's an easier way to handle this that doesn't encumber a closer with all this rigmarole. I'll make a note to take care of this in a couple weeks.Strike withdrawal. I failed to notice there was already another Delete !vote and withdrawal is, therefore, not appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC); edited 21:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you need to "take care of" other than improving sourcing? You tried to remove an article that you know had no business being removed. And it was so egregious that Jimmy Wales weighed in. Do better. Somekindofmutant (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Chetsford (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you also nominated to have Pippa Malmgren's and Christopher Mellon's pages deleted as well there is absolutely reason for worry. Appears you have a clear bias and agenda to push and are using absolutely any justification to use the most extreme action of having entire pages deleted. Any true Wikipedia editor should be embarrassed on your behalf, like Wales is. CrunchyDolphin (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This editor should be investigated for operating in bad faith Eamesheard (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"there is absolutely reason for worry" All that is going to happen, will happen. Don't stress about it. Chetsford (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~This guy is clearly acting in bad faith, he is working within the system to push an agenda. 206.121.189.142 (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please refer to Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 01:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article requires cleanup, but there is a lengthy article from the irish times, here and another article from news.com.au. Which both pass WP:RS, WP:Independent and add to notability. This is in addition to the sources already present in the article. Synonimany (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These don't meet our standards for WP:SIGCOV. Chetsford (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument hinges on dismissing two feature-length profiles as “not significant,” but that directly contradicts WP:SIGCOV:

> “Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed.”

–– Irish Times “Meet the Malmgrens…” runs over 30 paragraphs, tracing Harald Malmgren’s entire career—from Yale and Oxford, to his “whizz kids” days in the Pentagon, to advising four presidents—and includes extensive quotes and context, far beyond a mere mention .

–– News.com.au likewise ran a stand-alone article on Malmgren’s post-White House work and his UAP statements, complete with multiple paragraphs of biographical background, direct quotations, and analysis—again satisfying “significant coverage.”

Because both outlets are independent, reliable news organizations and have each devoted substantive, standalone pieces to Harald Malmgren, they fully meet WP:RS, WP:INDEPENDENT and the significant coverage test under WP:SIGCOV. Dismissing them wholesale ignores the very purpose of SIGCOV—to ensure that genuine, in-depth media profiles qualify a subject for a standalone article. 1.41.26.224 (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it adresses him in detail, no original research is required and it's the main focus of these two articles, so WP:SIGCOV is met. Synonimany (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets NAUTHOR, based on the reviews in the article and online. From my experience in WP:DELSORT/LIT, the reviews of his work should be enough. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a PhD thesis giving a more in-depth overview of him: https://theses.hal.science/tel-00721620/file/Arena_D.Phil.pdf ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ~ HAL333 01:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nom (2nd time) and keep ... a couple additional sources have emerged during the discussion. The article can be salvaged after all the cruft and non-RS are removed. I've started a new draft here. It will be better to rewrite it than delete it. Chetsford (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KapCon

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. I can't find any independent, reliable sources. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and New Zealand. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Clearly fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteInsufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kuwait at the 1980 Summer Olympics. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Majeed Al-Mosawi

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

Declined prod. 4 of the 5 sources are database/results listing. The other source merely confirms he authored a study and is not SIGCOV about Al-Mosawi. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Those wanting to keep should provide evidence of actual indepth sourcing and not just wave NEXIST. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I expanded the article just before it was nominated. Per comment, "It goes against our ethics on ADL for a nominator to dictate to the community which guidlines they should not invoke in their rationale/votes", and I don't think asking participants not to invoke any particular P&G is warranted.

I wasn't able to read the study because I don't know Arabic, but it's theoretically possible there's secondary SIGCOV of the subject within the PDF. Regardless, I think the WP:NEXIST case is strong because the subject had a years-long career as one of Kuwait's top sprinters per the info in WP:RS that we do have. We'd expect more coverage to be found in Kuwaiti newspaper archives when they're made available to us. --Habst (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kuwait at the 1980 Summer Olympics where everything there is to say about this non notable runner is already said. NEXIST argument is, once again, spurious, as has been repeatedly pointed out by AfD participants and closing admins. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, I have a lot of respect for your contributions. How is it spurious? Like most P&Gs, its application is subjective, and people can either agree or disagree with the rationale. It's fine to disagree, but for a nominator to dictate which guidelines are or are not allowed to be used in the AfD is not appropriate. --Habst (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way you use NEXIST to argue keep has not been accepted by other editors and admins in athlete AfDs. Clear consensus which multiple people have stressed to you. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where has it not been accepted? Do you think it is acceptable for a nominator to ask AfD participants not to invoke any particular guideline? If you disagree with the way any guideline is being applied, that's fine, but then you can argue that instead of saying that only certain consensus guidelines can be used. --Habst (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been accepted in at least 15 AfDs that @JoelleJay has pointed out to you. Now you play the naive card. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No evidence of the required IRS SIGCOV. NEXIST is very explicit that sufficient sources must provably exist and that it is not appropriate to invoke once notability is challenged. JoelleJay (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sirfuboy. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, which mandates in clear language: "All sports biographies . . . must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Here, no such SIGCOV has been presented. A redirect preserves the article history, such that it can be restored if and when SIGCOV is found. The notion that there might be SIGCOV in Kuwaiti sources (despite posting one of the slowest times in the preliminaries and not advancing) in no way trumps the clear and mandatory language of prong 5 quoted above. Cbl62 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for all the reasons already given by previous contributors.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kuwait at the 1980 Summer Olympics : Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The lack of Olympic achievements also invalidates the WP:NEXIST argument. Let'srun (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nomination, there is no question on the subject's qualification, participation or winnings in any of the national/world or either games but it significantly fails WP:GNG.

To the creator- Adding more reliable references might help to meet WP: RELIABILITY in any further edits. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator is permanently blocked. LibStar (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I add them (To the creator paragraph) just in case they (creators) might be confused here about what to do. As you pointed that out, not needed here and yes, a redirect is the best way. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kuwait at the 1980 Summer Olympics . This is similar to another one I just voted on. The sources leave something to be desire and this individual is associated with this one event that is worthy of its own page. Therefore, this seems to be the best choice for it moving forward. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kuwait at the 1980 Summer Olympics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leonie Nichols

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

Declined prod. No coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relies on a single source, and has a large lack of information. Fails WP:BLP. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
100% honestly I expected to find a source for this article in my WP:BEFORE - it seemed very likely that there would be some kind of hit in a local paper - but nothing pops up on Google. The DE Wiki article sources don't fix this. Delete it is. Keep per the new sources cited below. FOARP (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - A trivial mention here that is also primary (top of page 10). [100] But yes, there is a very surprising dearth of even the routine stuff you would expect. I wasn't going to !vote, as I would have been content to allow soft deletion, but then realised it is a declined PROD so that option is not available, so delete it is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to Keep per secondary treatments below. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect to Australia at the 2004 Summer Olympics: Subject does not have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Keep There is coverage of her in book 3 of 100 Australian sports stars of the 21st century [101] and this article from the Sydney Morning Herald from 1997 [102]. There may be coverage in an article in The Australian in 2004, but I can only see the first sentence [103]. There is biographical info in the SMH article which can be added to the article, and I'll see if I can find a copy of the book. There is also some info about her post-Olympics life in the book Be Your Own Boss [104], pages 68-73 - much of it is an interview, but there's an intro para with information, and it also gives details to use in searching (her degree in sports management, for example). RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the coverage found by RebeccaGreen, this subject meets the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blaire Fleming

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

Does not meet any of the five criteria in WP:NCOLLATH; notability is based primarily on being "outed" rather than actual athletic achievements. Furthermore, there are only two secondary sources cited, one article by ESPN in Nov. 2024 and New York Times Magazine in Apr. 2025. Thus, there isn't sufficient notability per WP:BASIC due to the person being notable for one event. Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Jose State Spartans women's volleyball per WP:BLP1E. (Me and @Yngvadottir: actually discussed Slusser at User talk:Launchballer/archive/2025/1401-1500#BLP / source concern.)--Laun chba ller 03:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Brooke Slusser would also now likely survive AfD on the strength and depth of the recent NYT article. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can create the article on Slusser if you feel it's notable, would likely have to go through AfC first though. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator) Way more sources are available than the two cited - this was a widely covered story: besides the (very strong) NYT article, there are CNN, AP, SF Chronicle, etc. I would still point to the NYT and ESPN stories as the strongest sources, which should be enough for BASIC. (WP:BLP1E does not apply as her role was substantial - and also there is no separate article for the event; that is a reasonable separate discussion to have.) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the CNN and AP sources do not name Fleming. Including the would be potentially original research. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that follows since she has gone public. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 05:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What happened with the 2024 San Jose State Spartans women's volleyball season is (IMO; I largely wrote the article) adequately covered there, and is a one-season news event. I'm not sure there should even be a redirect; there are huge privacy concerns and most news orgs not only did not name her during the season, they went out of their way to say they were not doing so because she had not self-identified as trans. San Jose State did not identify her as trans. (I originally cited a couple of sources that did name her within the article, but they were removed on source policy grounds.) I found almost nothing about her prior career; the April 20 New York Times article, although it has some information about her and is the major source of the new article, is also primarily about the team season. So it's BLP:1E with substantial BLPNOTPUBLIC concerns, and although it's better than could have been written up to April 20, there is still not enough published coverage of her, personally to outweigh these concerns or to demonstrate individual notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the measured answer. I think the Times story changes things a lot though. I'll note again that WP:BLP1E does not apply (only meets one of three needed prongs) and talking to the Times shows she is no longer keeping a low profile. Also note that WP:SIGCOV does not need to be the main topic of the source material, but even besides that, the seven paragraphs from "It was against this backdrop of expanding tolerance" to "She says she needn't have been" are substantial coverage not about the 2024 season. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 05:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Volleyball, California, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable athletic career, I'm not sure the transgender issue is notable. This would be akin to "outing" a gay person in the 1980s that wasn't otherwise notable; we don't really care what gender you are, you need to pass GNG or sporting notability. This person doesn't appear to have done so. I suppose there is a brief story to be told if the university's sports season is notable, coverage is more about the team than this person. Oaktree b (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to San Jose State Spartans women's volleyball, as this article's subject is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Per nom, the subject doesn't meet any of the criteria to be considered a WP:NCOLLATH.--DesiMoore (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCOLLATH says non-trivial media coverage is likely to exist if they have Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team. That is exactly what has happened here (enough to meet GNG as I explain above). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to San Jose State Spartans women's volleyball#2024 season. Doesn't appear notable outside of her outing. I understand the privacy concers with a redirect but a brief look at recent coverage does show her being mentioned by name so I imagine her name will be searched on Wikipedia anyway. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blaire Fleming is a notable and famous college athlete. Drcynthiatenientematson (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: I have blocked this account from editing until they can verify that they are Cynthia Teniente-Matson. I would caution anyone against making assumptions in either direction. I would also caution anyone (say, passing journalists) from misrepresenting this as Dr. Teniente-Matson (if that's who this is) being blocked for misconduct. Blocks in cases like this are to protect the person whose name is being used, not due to misconduct; this block will be lifted if the account does verify. (While there would be a conflict of interest issue in that case, it would not on its own rise to the level of an immediate block from editing.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree totally with Oaktree b. Also, if Drcynthiatenientematson is who they say they are on their user page, then they have an undeclared COI which should invalidate their keep vote. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The already existing coverage in Transgender people in sports and in San Jose State Spartans women's volleyball was already sufficient (before she was named). Should she become notable for a second event, like, for example, becoming an activist, that would obviously change my evaluation. For the time being she's described in the NYT article focused on the team's season as a "a middle-of-the-pack player" and as having been "a little-known college player" until others decided to try to make her notable. From WP:LPI : A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Model Context Protocol

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

This article consists of mostly machine-generated text, was not disclosed as being machine-generated when published by the page creator and there are multiple drafts for the same subject (Model Context Protocol, Model Context Protocol 1, Model Context Protocol (MCP)). LemurianPatriot (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. LemurianPatriot (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for the review. It's not perfect, but still the most in-depth version compared to the competing drafts and even more comprehensive than the Chinese counterpart of the same Wikipedia article on the Model Context Protocol: https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E6%A8%A1%E5%9E%8B%E4%B8%8A%E4%B8%8B%E6%96%87%E5%8D%8F%E8%AE%AE

It has reached a critical point of notability with OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google DeepMind's Gemini supporting it. Feel free to edit it to improve it! Canp (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe parts to rework or to delete, but please keep the article, since relevant and MCP has some momentum, see e.g. InfoQ (Professional Software Development) article https://www.infoq.com/news/2025/04/fastapi-mcp/. Mywikie (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's important that Wikipedia has a page for MCP since loads of people, including me, will be searching for info and LLMs aren't trained with data new enough. 80.221.185.118 (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with revisions) per Canp. The coverage/adoption in the past month ([105], [106]) is enough for this to be on Wikipedia somewhere; I can't think of a redirect target. Neutral or possibly supportive of a full swap with Draft:Model Context Protocol, which is less LLM-generated. 65.144.53.2 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep sorry I am not logged in. I am an old Wikipedia editor ( but on my phone). I came to Wikipedia specifically for an article about this topic which I am glad to read! This should not be merged with another article... This is a topic on its own ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.202.90.212 (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No support for deletion beyond nominator, but without P&G-based !votes this discussion thus far it would be good to hear from some AfD regulars.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Relatively new but quite significant development in machine learning. Plenty of good sources available. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there are many articles and blog pages, I purposly added wikipedia to my search term to day to find this page. while always ways to improve, I believe the topic is gaining traction and is important. Tharple ^Talk 18:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I love deleting articles for Wikipedia:TOOSOON, this is so obviously a notable topic and space that receives intense academic and press coverage. We're better off improving the article instead of deleting it and being back in the same place in a month. Brandon (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A new topic, but an important one.Jan Spousta (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cleanup yes, delete no - WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Would be good to merge goodness from draft(s). Widefox; talk 20:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a pretty notable thing and, like others have said, I cannot think of a viable redirect here. There are also some good sources to support it. I also think this draft is a better written version of the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Model_Context_Protocol Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2028 United States Senate elections#Ohio. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2028 United States Senate election in Ohio

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

feels WP:TOOSOON since Vance was actually elected as VP, so all sources are basically about the 2026 election. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States Senate elections#Ohio. Far too soon to have an article for this election especially when we don't even know who the incumbent will be. Sources also just don't really exist for this election yet. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete as mentioned above. That election is not happening for 3-1/2 years. Too soon to even speculate who the candidates will be. — Maile (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON to know if the US will still have democratic elections in 2028.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per reasons above. Far too soon for an article to be written, especially when it’s candidateS haven’t been confirmed yet.

IiSmxyzXX (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2028 United States Senate elections#Ohio per Esolo5002. Sal2100 (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2028 United States Senate elections#Ohio: WP:TOOSOON Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 00:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Elizabeth Koch (publisher). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Balloon Publishing

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

Does not seem notable under organization guidelines WP:ORG 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 02:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 02:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Elizabeth Koch - the company has a lot of mentions (usually in parantheses, in book reviews and the like) but this[107] is the closest to I can find to WP:SIGCOV. I don't see any WP:GNG to suggest the company is notable independent of founder. Zzz plant (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean Elizabeth Koch (publisher) and not Elizabeth Koch (musician)? 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 18:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - No mention of it on her page which surprises me. We can simply copy over that she is the founder and redirect this title. As far as notability, there is nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT so the Publishing house would not meet WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a mention on the page in a prior version before I made edits. I didn't see any sources that made Black Balloon Publishing the subject of the article. I wasn't sure it was notable. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 03:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. Can always add a mention back to that page prior to creating a redirect. Either way, this shouldn't a standalone page. Cheers!--CNMall41 (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Elizabeth Koch (publisher): This imprint is not independently notable from the publisher that owns it. Since the publisher does not have its own article, the imprint's article should be redirected to the article on the publisher's founder. A brief mention of the imprint should be added to her article, however. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devlin Barnes

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only source in the article is primary and a BEFORE search only came up with coverage for an unrelated abductor with nothing significant about this subject available. Let'srun (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Health and fitness, Football, and Massachusetts. Let'srun (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EN 13445

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

Fails WP:GNG, little evidence of notability. Created in 2008 and barely touched since. GoldRomean (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ SL93 (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryosuke Nemoto

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

No significant coverage per WP:NATHLETE. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a look at the Japanese wiki page, however there are no real citations there, a few external links that don't really help. He has played a lot of games for Montedio Yamagata who I would like a medium sized club in Japan with a fair-ish fan base. But the language barrier doesn't help in searching for sources. Could be classed as important player for the club, but I am unsure because of the language barrier. I believe he is notable for Japanese wikipedia but not the English version. That would be my opinion. Regards. Govvy (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this on JP news. Hochi News (Though part of this is a transcript of an interview but still has a significant analysis). FNN article. Gekisaka. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is likely enough. SL93 (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. Nemoto is a one-club player for Montedio Yamagata and played 224 games for them. There must be coverage of him out there. If he had only played 3 games for them and retired after one season, I would say delete, but this is an important player for the club. RossEvans19 (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highlands Pier

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

I can't find any proof that this pier was actually built, much less that it meets GNG. As of this version:

Sources 1 and 2 establish that Flemm applied to build the pier, but not that it was actually built. (The claim in the article that the Army Corps built the pier is a misinterpretation of these sources.)
Source 3 is about a completely different pier over a mile away from the location described in sources 1 and 2
Source 4 is a municipal code listing that does not mention this specific pier at all.
Sources 5 and 6 are general tourist information sites that do not mention this specific pier at all.

Even if the pier was built, it seems unlikely that it would pass GNG. There are dozens of similar piers on this river. A BEFORE search fails to find any significant coverage - or indeed any coverage but sources 1 and 2 - about this pier. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are some old ferry advertisements mentioning an "Atlantic Highlands Pier" in NJ but it seems like it's referring to a pier that existed by the 1920s[108](p.140) so that doesn't even match up with the building date in the article. Zzz plant (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO PI! I met you about late summer of 2023, just a short time after I started editing here! You were fantastic, told me you were passionate about help files and to ping you if I needed help, but I didn't even know what that was or how to find you again, haha! Anyway...

Delete. Is this "amusement park pier" the one in your link? Maybe this is it too. This detailed description predates what we want, I'm guessing... I'm with you. I'm betting his pier never got built. Historic aerial photos south of the bridge in the decades after the 1940s don't show anything like an amusement pier.

Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Sandstein 15:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electrum (software)

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

The subject fails to meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is not demonstrated. The only references are a couple of wallet reviews and technical mentions which may be insufficient per [WP:GNG] and [WP:ORGCRITE]. In particular, there is little to no coverage in mainstream media beyond routine crypto-sector coverage. Per [WP:NONCRYPTO], sources solely from cryptocurrency-focused outlets or passing mentions cannot establish notability Pollia (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Pollia (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the history of the article. The article already was nominated for deletion and after discussion it was agreed to keep it. Then someone simply removed almost everything from the article. This is an important software in the cryptocurrencies area. Stokito (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Electrum is widely used in the cryptocurrency community, but popularity alone does not establish notability on Wikipedia. As outlined in WP:GNG, notability requires significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. While the article was previously kept, the current content and references do not demonstrate the kind of in-depth, independent coverage required for inclusion. If there are reliable, independent sources from the prior discussion that meet these standards, they should be reintroduced and clearly cited. Without such sources, the article does not meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability. Pollia (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pollia what is [WP:NONCRYPTO] supposed to represent here? There is no policy/essay/guideline under WP:NONCRYPTO and although there are some discussions about reliability of certain outlets there isn't PAG (to my knowledge) that says all cryptocurrency-focused outlets are not accepted for notability. Oblivy (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I was referring to WP:NONCRYPTO, which is an accepted guideline discussing how cryptocurrency-related articles should be held to the same notability standards as any other topic. It’s true there is no policy excluding all cryptocurrency-focused outlets, but the guideline emphasizes that they must meet WP:RS standards and demonstrate significant, independent coverage. If you feel the article’s sources meet these criteria, we should carefully examine them. However, at this time, the sources provided don’t seem to establish notability under these guidelines. Pollia (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources already present in the article are sufficient to show notability, along with additional sources discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrum Bitcoin Wallet. In-depth reviews in mainstream publications are not "routine coverage". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the current sources demonstrate notability, could you identify which specific references meet WP:GNG by providing significant, independent coverage? The article presently relies heavily on niche or cryptocurrency-focused outlets that do not appear to meet the standards of WP:RS. Without additional coverage in more widely recognized, independent publications, it’s difficult to argue that the topic is notable under Wikipedia’s guidelines. Pollia (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Techradar review and Money.com review are reliable, mainstream publications with in-depth coverage. Although not in the article, additional sources were highlighted at the last AfD, particularly SmartSE's comment. All of the sources in that comment except for Business Insider are generally reliable, and none of the sources are "crypto-focused" publications. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note It seems that the renaming of this article may have been an attempt to better align the title with Wikipedia’s guidelines on naming conventions. However, while the new title might reflect more common usage or improved clarity, it’s important to ensure that the content of the article and its sources meet Wikipedia’s core policies, such as WP:GNG and WP:RS. Pollia (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm apprehensive as to the reliability of "Money.com" (Yes, it's owned by Time, but News Corp owns both Wall Street Journal and Fox News), but the previous discussions's sources convinced me. There are peer-reviewed academic reviews on the security of the subject. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting for further input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edge Spectrum

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

Article about an American station group that is more of a shell game using the public broadcast spectrum for some unknown purpose than as a functioning broadcaster; most of their existence seems to be acquiring low-power television licenses then doing very little with them (allegedly to be ready for the ATSC 3.0 standard, though I've seen this company pull the same racket since 2019).

Although they do have stations on the air, most of them with religious networks or the lowest-tier shopping and entertainment subchannel networks to technically exist, they have many more stations that are only licensed and seem to be in a permanent state of tolling/power modifications at the FCC where they do just enough to not lose said licenses or actually have to build a tower or transmitter.

Very few sources for this company exist outside of FCC notes (and a fine for not renewing licenses in time), along with broadcasting blogs running down endless 'Edge Spectrum (calls of stations) has submitted a new tolling request/power reduction' line items to the point that it's a shock when they do put a station on the air.

The group's template was recently deleted (it was mostly redlinks for stations which have never come to the air which looked even more absurd earlier this month; a template for nothing), and this article should meet the same fate as this company has no designs on actually broadcasting or elaborating on their business model. Nathannah • 📮 00:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.- Iban14mxl (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 05:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. No policy or guideline based rationale for deletion elaborated. Goldsztajn (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greco-Persian Wars

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

This article is problematic because it deviates from Roman-Persian Wars and Seleucid-Parthian Wars Iranian112 (talk)

Could you elaborate a tad bit more, this is kind of vague. What do you mean deviates? Gaismagorm (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Lists, and Greece. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page deviates from Greco-Persian Wars and mentions the Seleucid–Parthian Wars and Byzantine-Sassanian wars, which are not part of the Greco-Persian Wars Iranian112 (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this refers to the wars of the Greek states against the Persian states Rxsxuis (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they aren't, we don't need to delete the whole article, we just need to fix it. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water and all that. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But if we remove Seleucid–Parthian Wars Byzantine and Byzantine-Sassanian wars from the article, a total of 5 war remain, and there is no need for this page at all. Iranian112 (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it better to redirect to Greco-Persian Wars. Iranian112 (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This list covers the period of all wars between the Greek and Persian states. There is no reason to remove the Seleucids and Byzantium from it. Rxsxuis (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Byzantine-Sassanian Wars should be listed as conflicts between the Persians and Romans, not the Persian-Greek Wars. Iranian112 (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And there is no need to create a list for the conflict between two ethnic groups. Iranian112 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia appropriate rationale for deletion has not been provided. This article could easily be expanded (Alexandrian wars) and edited to better meet guidelines.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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