Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/TWP:AFD/T

2 July 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 01	July 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Tighe, Indiana

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

Entered late into GNIS from a state highway map, this Federal Writer's Project write-up claims it was a mine and that "There is nothing else there." I found some other references to it as a mine, but nothing that said "town". Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kranjac

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

Former gubernatorial candidate who got 2% in the Republican primary and former mayor of a town with a population of ~5,000. Obviously not enough for a WP page, and I don't see any reason to think he passes GNG either. Most sources cited on the page are ROTM coverage and passing mentions in articles about the gubernatorial race. I'd support a redirect to 2025 New Jersey gubernatorial election. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see an abundance of sources that contribute to WP:GNG. Local-level politicians can lose an election, thereby not being inherently notable under WP:NPOL, but still be very much notable under WP:NBASIC. From what I can see, the subject of this article has received plenty of substantial coverage in a wide variety of publications. The article is actually pretty decently well written, too. MediaKyle (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Brodar

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

Unable to find SIGCOV InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Austria. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Rischtoff

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

Unable to find SIGCOV InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Austria. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Heinz Müller

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

Unable to find significant coverage on the fencer InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Austria. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Blaschka

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

Unable to find significant coverage InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Austria. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unable to find WP:SIGCOV yet, but the subject was competing as recently as 2018: [[1]] Let'srun (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Brünner

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

No sources found or evidence of notability InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Austria. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Family (food company)

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

I came across this article after seeing Draft:HealthyBaby at AfC. I don't see anything here except primary sources, passing mentions, and routine coverage. In my WP:BEFORE I was unable to find any independent, secondary coverage upon which to build an article. The article history suggests that this was created for promotional purposes, and its primary author is blocked for "inappropriate emails". MediaKyle (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much growth or coverage since 2012. Author was also found to be a sockpuppet of Morning277. Looks purely promo so should be on the chopping block imo Burroughs'10 (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can find independent sources on this company: [2], [3], [4]. The third is probably RS, but I don't know about the other two. Based on the other articles they publish, they look rather uncritical and fluffy. If these sources could be shown to be RS, I would suggest keep. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Graif

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

This came up at WP:COIN, where there has been argument also over whether the subject is notable or not. Bringing here to get a clear consensus. I am personally a weak delete: the source I see are all either glancing mentions or human interest reporting of the sort that I do not think adds much to notability. I am influenced by WP:TNT: this overweight article has little to do with what an eventual article on the subject would look like. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Games, Canada, and New York. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article appears to be well referenced on its surface, but upon further investigation they are very much lacking. The sources marked US Chess are actually from the US Chess Federation, whereas reading US Chess initially implied to me it was some sort of news publication - the rest appear to be largely passing mentions, or routine coverage and scoreboards. I also concur with the nominator that TNT bears some weight here. I'd be interested to hear the opinion of a chess editor but from my point of view there's not much to build an article on. MediaKyle (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rigaku

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

Julian in LA (talk · contribs) attempted to nominate this article for deletion, but wound up sending the talk page to AfD instead. Their rationale follows:

fails WP:COMPANY#Primary criteria. A search of Newspapers.com, Google and JSTOR revealed no notability. Ldm1954 commented that "They are a famous maker of x-ray equipment." Fame is not the same as notability and nothing in the sources indicates that they are more widely known than dozens of other multinational technology companies.
— User:Julian in LA 18:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

My involvement is merely procedural; I am neutral and offer no opinion or further comment (beyond that Ldm1954 (talk · contribs)'s comments are in the context of declining a PROD). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Science, Technology, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural, to clarify, @Julian in LA did nominate it via a PROD which I contested . They then inappropriately nominated it for AfD on the talk page, which I reverted indicating that it needed to be done at the main page. Since they meant to do an AfD let's run with this. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A fuller explanation is at Rigaku#Proposed deletion of Rigaku. Julian in LA (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technical correction, the location is Talk:Rigaku#Proposed deletion of Rigaku, which is for the original PROD. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The nom is a new editor, and I do not think that they did a proper WP:Before and are not that familiar with how we define notability. These instruments are used in many academic and technological areas. All major research universities have several x-ray diffractometers, and a good fraction of these are from Rigaku. They are heavily used for quality control in industry in areas ranging from metallurgy to pharmaceuticals. Even conservatively with one paper per week per university using this equipment, we reach many thousands per year, which is what there is. A Google Scholar search on Rigaku yields > 400K hits. If you just limit it to "Rigaku diffractometer" then it is ~14,000, and a similar search just on Google yields 25,000 Unfortunately it appears that the nom did not search appropriately. I have seen people arguing that a few mentions in Google Scholar and/or JStor is enough to justify a commercial page; the number here is way beyond that.Ldm1954 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rackspace Technology

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

Julian in LA (talk · contribs) attempted to nominate this article for deletion, but wound up sending the talk page to AfD instead. Their rationale follows:

fails WP:COMPANY#Primary criteria
— User:Julian in LA 18:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

They previously attempted to PROD this with the same rationale, but after getting a seconding it was declined due to the article's sourcing. I offer no opinion or comment on that or anything else; I am merely procedurally nominating an article that had its talk page nominated instead. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should add that Julian in LA gives further elaboration on their opinion of the sources on the talk page. (Again, I am neutral and offer no opinion of my own.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Cobras

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable amateur rugby league club. Fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and Australia. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first nomination in 2010 appears to have been about a British university sports team, and thus a different subject than the current article on an Australian rugby league club. (No opinion in any event.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian exonyms

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

Perhaps this should be moved to Serbian Wikipedia as it would be more notable there? Sebirkhan (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Serbia. Sebirkhan (talk) 15:23, Sebirkhan July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Lists. --Finngall ^talk 18:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If there were something interesting to say about particular exonyms, particularly those that are unrelated to the endonym, that would be another matter. —Sebirkhan (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Badly malformed nomination--discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Nominator transcluded discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists but not to the Language or Serbia delsort lists as indicated above. I believe that I have fixed all of these. @Sebirkhan: I struck your bolded delete as redundant, as the fact of your nomination is an implicit delete !vote. For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 18:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese exonyms

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

Perhaps this should be moved to Chinese Wikipedia as it would be more notable there? Sebirkhan (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and China. Sebirkhan (talk) 15:23, Sebirkhan July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Lists. --Finngall ^talk 18:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If there were something interesting to say about particular exonyms, particularly those that are unrelated to the endonym, that would be another matter. —Sebirkhan (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Badly malformed nomination--discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Nominator transcluded discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists but not to the Language or China delsort lists as indicated above. I believe that I have fixed all of these. @Sebirkhan: I struck your bolded delete as redundant, as the fact of your nomination is an implicit delete !vote. For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 18:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Per WP:SKCRIT #3, entirely erroneous nomination without a valid rationale. The article isn't even that bad, could use some work sure, but so can everything else. MediaKyle (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needmore, Vermillion County, Indiana

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

I found a relatively recent (1990s) county history that affirms Baker's 1904 plat date, but I must remind everyone that drawing up a plat doesn't imply that it was ever carried through. What I see is a string of four houses, not particularly close to one another; to the east is a gravel pit or something of the like. I've not found anything that talks about the place, just the usual listings of place names. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to a new list (i.e. create List:Unincorporated communities in Indiana). Nothing really of note here. I guess the biggest hurdle would be to delete every single entry that is of similar substance in Category:Unincorporated communities in Vermillion County, Indiana Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:24, 2 July 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 procedural close‎. This is another one of those instances where the nominator was indeed attempting to nominate the article for deletion, but accidentially sent the talk page to AfD instead. A corrected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rackspace Technology will be initiated imminently. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rackspace Technology

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

fails WP:COMPANY#Primary criteria Julian in LA (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Julian in LA (talk) 18:37, 2 July 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.

Emmett James

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this BLP about an actor, and moved two external links to references in the article. These are only mentions of his name in credits, however, and I have not found significant coverage to add. He does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST. He has been a producer on films which have won awards, and has won a stage award, the ADA Award, but these don't appear to be notable awards, and I can't find significant coverage of him in the context of them. The refs before I added two were to IMDb, Wikipedia, and two film festivals, which does not meet WP:THREE. Article has been tagged with notability concerns since 2017. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, Theatre, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not finding anything - most of his roles are smaller and less likely to gain mention in sourcing. I was trying to find coverage for his theatrical performances, but I'm not finding much there either. With the awards, it looks like those were "best film" type awards for movies he produced. However the issue with awards as producer is that it's harder to establish their role in the production. Some producers are extremely involved and important to the final product, whereas others aren't really "hands on" with the production outside of funding and initial work. Of course then we have to look at whether or not the awards are notable enough to meet NCREATIVE/NACTOR either partially (count towards but not enough on its own to keep) or fully (enough on its own). I've always thought a good rule of thumb is to see if the awards website lists the producer. If so, then it could be usable (assuming the award is notable), if not it likely isn't.

In any case, with the awards, two of them are known vanity awards (Accolade Competition, Impact Docs Award). Nashville Film Festival and the Beverly Hill Film Festival look like wins from them would probably be usable. Tacoma Film Festival is smaller, but probably OK. The other wins are questionable as far as notability goes and the others are nominations so it's irrelevant whether they are notable or not - none of them are at the level where a nomination would be considered noteworthy. That's limited to things like the Oscars.

I guess the question here is whether or not his producing role was large enough for him to inherit notability from the movies in a similar way that one would as an actor or director. Executive producer credits would probably count, but the generic producer credit is where there's pause. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of theater reviews. Only three though, which is technically enough I guess to pass NACTOR. I think between that and the kind of nebulous producer notability, that might be enough to keep. I'm not 100% so I am not making an argument for or against at the moment. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What info would you like from me? Emmett James film Life and Larry Brown was short listed for an Academy Award. He has produced a ton of films that are on Netflix, amazon and Hulu where he is the main producer. He is one of the heads of the producers guild of America for documentaries. He does conventions around the world for his acting credits including TITANIC and has appeared as a guest speak at comic con in San Diego for Star Wars. Im a little confused to why this is even a discussion to be honest Savinghollywood (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the nomination, that would really only help if he was on the final ballot. Normally being nominated (but not winning) would not help count towards notability at all, however the Academy Award is kind of the pinnacle of things one can be nominated for with films in the US. At the same time, being shortlisted doesn't mean that someone ended up on the final ballot. Even then it kind of goes back to the issue of establishing notability for producers. Honestly, most producers tend to end up failing NCREATIVE, regardless of how successful they are. It's just really difficult to argue for notability for them.

What would really be useful here is coverage of James or coverage of the work that gives some detail on him. For his acting roles (including stage), reviews of the work that specifically mention him would be as good as gold. With the notable films and shows, those roles are only as notable as the mention he receives in reviews and independent, reliable, secondary coverage of the episode or film. Many of his roles were background or minor, which typically don't get much coverage. He does seem to have been in a few episodes of some anime, but I'll be honest in that establishing notability for VAs is insanely difficult. I remember trying to argue notability for someone who voiced multiple main characters in several large, notable series. It was insanely difficult, because people usually don't highlight specific VAs - even the anime outlets are bad at that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK- found the VA I was mentioning. What I participated in wasn't an AfD (although she had been brought to AfD and deleted in the past due to a lack of sourcing), but it was as good as one. It was Brianne Siddall. Her notability is established now, but it was extremely difficult to accomplish this despite her voicing major characters in some pretty iconic anime like Outlaw Star. I don't mean to derail the AfD, I just wanted to emphasize how difficult it can be to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has had some minor roles; has been producer on minor films. I don't find any source that is about him. The good sources here are name checks, and a one sentence "review". Lamona (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the reviews, do you mean the ones for the theater productions? With that, the reviews for the productions are pretty meaty. One specifically highlights James - Variety doesn't explicitly mention him in the review body (they do mention the gang, which James portrays a member of), but it was a small production. For the other production, the LA Times review is also pretty lengthy and also specifically mentions him as well.

If you are referring to the LA Times review of "Uncomfortable Family Ties" that is the one with all of 2 sentences about him, and that's the most that I have found. If you are referring to something else, I've missed it and need a reminder. Thanks. Lamona (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be clear that I'm not exactly arguing for a keep, just that the reviews are in-depth and when he is actually mentioned by name in the review there's mention of his performance quality. However if we discard the Variety source I am aware that these are two reviews by the same paper. I was hoping that Savinghollywood would have access to other theater reviews that are of similar depth and reliability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can send you a ton of reviews if this will help:

Everything producing from:

https://deadline.com/2023/06/the-elephant-6-recording-co-music-documentary-greenwich-entertainment-acquisition-news-1235424776/

His films have been up for academy awards such as this Variety ad for the movie that was an Oscar shortlist oscars

https://www.ebay.com/itm/324452745826

Films he's produced have been reviewed in publications such as Rolling Stone

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/peter-hook-dennis-and-lois-documentary-990257/

For book reviews of his memoir they are everywhere:

https://www.errantdreams.com/2008/03/admit-one-emmet-james/

you can find the LA Times review of his lead role on stage in la written by esteemed critic: Robin Rauzi:

LA Times Sep 97 titled "uncomfortable family ties" https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-sep-10-ca-21177-story.html

He does celebrity conventions/signings constantly from San Diego Comic Con right through to one in a few weeks in Virginia for the film TITANIC July 25-27th Newport News Virginia

Just let me know what specifically you need. Savinghollywood (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-oct-02-ca-38659-story.html

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/sidemen-long-road-glory-1030244/

Hollywood reporter of the film he produced SIDEMEN Savinghollywood (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of these is about him; some just "name check" him in the list of producers; some don't even mention him. There is one 2-sentence "review" in the LA Times: Emmett James is remarkably convincing as Tom. His manner and wails remain so consistent that when he speaks as part of the discords it is startling. That's it, and that is far from enough to meet GNG, much less BLP. We need substantial, reliable sources about HIM. (Note: Errant Dreams appears to be a person's blog, and therefore is not a reliable source.) Lamona (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Boufarhat

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

This article reads somewhat like a resume mixed with a blog, possibly because the subject, per the article, "keeps a low public profile". The references, though 30, are not predominantly about the subject; many are ammouncements about his company, and several others are general articles that mention him in passing. The few sources that are actually about him profile him for having a lot of money, either locally or in Forbes, and are not generally in depth. He does not appear to be personally notable. This is also a problematic WP:BLP, devoting a lot of space to his personal health. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, United Arab Emirates, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of enduring (or even basic) notability. His brief time in a UAE school didn't really leave any footprints here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Coverage exists on plenty of sites to meet WP:BASIC. Check 1, 2, 3, 4. Mysecretgarden (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in agreement. This is a lot of by-the-numbers reporting that is mostly not about the subject. The most that can be said about him from all 4 sources is that he sold a company. FalconK (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant coverage - and if he keeps a low profile, then maybe he doesn't want to be a public figure. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough coverage for this to be made into an article that doesn't need to be deleted.

GalStar (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is reasonable to assume someone reading the Forbes 30 Under 30 Europe list might want to read more about those named in the list. User01938 (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs more reliable sources (and some of these links are broken) but there are at least 3 reliable sources that provide significant coverage: Manchester Evening News, BBC, Bloomberg via Yahoo, Australian Financial Review. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many reliable sources talk about him, which in my opinion is enough to show his notability. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]

Antoine le Deuxième (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reading some of the !votes here, I get a sense of off-wiki canvassing. It'll be useful to get the view of some of our more experienced AfD regulars.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems the problematic edit was this one. If you go to the diff before that, the article isn't that bad. We could just revert back to that version and let the article develop naturally from there... It seems like the sources are available, it just got turned into a brochure. MediaKyle (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invented here

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

Lack of independent notability, should be folded into Not invented here. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close If you think this should be rolled into another article, then that calls for a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion. See Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merge. Largoplazo (talk) 21:49, 2 July 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 procedural close‎. This is another one of those instances where the nominator was indeed attempting to nominate the article for deletion, but accidentially sent the talk page to AfD instead. A corrected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rigaku will be initiated imminently. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rigaku

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

fails WP:COMPANY#Primary criteria. A search of Newspapers.com, Google and JSTOR revealed no notability. Ldm1954 commented that "They are a famous maker of x-ray equipment." Fame is not the same as notability and nothing in the sources indicates that they are more widely known than dozens of other multinational technology companies. Julian in LA (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Julian in LA (talk) 18:18, 2 July 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.

Nisar Rahmath

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

This article was previously moved to draft space due to concerns about notability and insufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources. I reviewed the draft and declined it for lacking significant coverage to meet the general notability guideline (GNG). However, the creator has since moved it back to mainspace without addressing the sourcing concerns. While the subject has received an award, I believe it is not sufficient on its own to establish notability without substantial independent coverage. I'm bringing this to AfD so that other editors can review the article and share their opinions on whether it meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Afstromen (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Afstromen (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Nisar Rahmath received the Kerala State Film Award for Best Costume Designer, an official and notable recognition by a government cultural body. The article is supported by coverage in reliable and independent sources, including a feature profile in Deccan Chronicle and an interview in Manorama Online, both of which discuss his background, career, and achievements in detail. Shakheeb (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shakheeb, I've removed what appears to have been an accidental duplicate !Vote of yours. Just making a note of it here for clarity sake. Netherzone (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State Highway 57 (Andhra Pradesh)

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

It's just a highway that isn't notable. Only sources are a map and a government source that just mentions an extension and nothing more about the general road itself. Fails WP:GNG. KrystalInfernus (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plainfield High School (Connecticut)

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

Not seeing much WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources for this article, even for a stub. Google Scholar turned up nothing, and Google News doesn't have much other than what I'd normally expect for a high school (closures, sports scores, etc.) Gommeh 🎮 17:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Gommeh 🎮 17:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Connecticut. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing of note Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gusti Irwan Wibowo

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN, At first glance it looks like a news site, it is not formulated as an article. Lobogamio (talk) 23:51, 15 June 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 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Entertainment, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Lobogamio did you create an account just to tag this? @Liz: this seems odd? Thief-River-Faller (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --pro-anti-air (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG and NMUSICIAN. The mere act of releasing an album is not a guarantee of notability, and I see nothing otherwise that would do so. As written, the article fails all 12 of the NMUSICIAN criteria. As far as GNG, of the three sources that are there, the first is a blogspot link, which fails RS. The second source only established year of birth and where he went to school, neither of which establish notability. The third source appears to be some sort of celebrity digital media site, and whether it's reliable is probably up for debate. The fact that this article is getting filled with sources that aren't establishing anything other than basic data, and was started by an editor who otherwise does nothing but make large numbers of small formatting edits (like removing middle initials from wikilinks), and has a number of edits that are causing the user to get talkpage notices tells me there's a potential WP:CIR issue here. 146.115.58.160 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't doubt the primary claims about sourcing, I don't think your claims about the editor who created are necessarily accurate or relveant.

For example the claim about "otherwise does nothing but make large numbers of small formatting edits" seems not only an unnecessary attack, as AfD should be considering primarily the article. But it also appears inaccurate, as they are informed (on their talk page) that an article they have created is "in the news", which means I am unsure as to why you have decided this may be a WP:CIR issue (as the comments on their talk page suggest some level of comptency in creating articles). Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 18:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to get pedantic, the "in the news" was for an article the user updated (not created), and that update consisted solely of changing the infobox template used (for some unknown reason) and adding a reference to a Fox News article for date of death, which was subsequently removed by another editor. The user neither created nor substantially contributed to that article, and the rest of the talk page is full of warnings about infobox editing, contentious topics editing, lack of RS, etc. I would also note the user generally has no edits over 200 bytes in length (most of which are mobile edits), and when the user created Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber Policy, the actual listbox in the article says "space policy" (which I fixed). So I would say that yes, it's relevant because the user has problems with basic editing and proofing. 146.115.58.160 (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uh? I created the article, I have over 1,200 page creations to my name, are you getting me mixed up with one of the other editors? I have never made random edits like the ones you are claiming? ....also I did not create Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber Policy Thief-River-Faller (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, I have been able to find some sources with English translations (of dubious quality but at least the gist can be understood) that provide some sort of analysis of his work (such as this one), although not being particularly involved in music specific articles and policy I am unsure if this would simply count as routine coverage or might impart at least some notability. The same news agency discusses what was intended to be his attendance to a festival and collaboration with other artists here, although this one I'm far doubtful of meaningfully contributing. As such, having excluded use of obituaries, I think that someone more dedicated (and who can read Indonesian) may be able to find further sourcing for notability, and thus draftification such that more work can be done may be suitable although I can also understand the reasons for deletion and hold no fundemental opposition to it.. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 18:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the new information added by @Thedisponible. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it currently stands is considerably different to when this was tagged, User:Thedisponible has improved the article. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess changes later in the AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Many of the sources cited are WP:PRIMARY and the ones that seem halfway decent (such as CNN Indonesia and the IDN Times) are WP:ROUTINE. There's not enough WP:SIGCOV to warrant an article in my opinion.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are now enough reliable sources showing significant coverage referenced in the article to enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine Voice

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

Lacks enough coverage in I/R sources with SIGCOV. The article has three reviews of her work from 2016, but nothing before or after that time, and I couldn't find anything else related to "Medicine Voice" (searched Google and ProQuest). —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete: We have sources from The Guardian, 4NNN, and Happy Magazine, all of which seem to be good sources contributing to GNG, but that's entirely it from my assessment. I checked Newspapers.com as well, no hits. If we had even just a couple more sources I'd probably be willing to !vote keep, but notability is pretty shaky as it stands. MediaKyle (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Sibgat Ullah

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

Non-notable police officer. No independent sources that go beyond trivial mentions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, and India. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UNTV Cup Season 1

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

These are individual seasons of the UNTV Cup, an amateur basketball league for charity aired by UNTV with teams composed of players from different Philippine government agencies. While the general tournament per se may be notable, individual seasons are not. This has been tagged for years, and is almost exclusively referenced to UNTV or to UNTV Cup, a case of WP:PRIMARY. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason, as part of a series:

Howard the Duck (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Algard Wicca

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

No demonstrable notability, despite tagging for 6 year. A merge was agreed and completed (Talk:British Traditional Wicca/Archive 1#Proposed merge with Algard Wicca), but the content didn't survive at the target. Google scholar shows some tangential mentions in reliable sources, but insufficient to establish notability. The two sources also only tangentially mention it. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Klbrain (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. I was able to find ample passing mentions in literature but none in reliable sources that go beyond stating basics: that Algard Wicca exists, it is a blend of Gardnerian and Alexandrian traditions, and that Mary Nesnick originated it. I do not believe the article is suitable to be merged, and a prior merge proved unsuccessful. If someone is able to find sources that provide sigcov please ping me. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is already mentioned on the Wicca entry ~~where Bull of Heaven reference can also live. I'll work on that~~ BoH on Eddie Buczynski and makes more sense there Burroughs'10 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Javed Arif

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

The only sources cited are Wikipedia itself, IMDb, and the person's own stuff on Spotify. Upon searching, I can only find results for a professor who apparently has the same name, but no reliable and independent material about this individual, so there is no indication that the subject is notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per rationale above. I can't find anything to suggest any notability either. Draft was twice refused at AFC as "Submission is about a musician or musical work not yet shown to meet notability guidelines " and "Topic is not notable". Article creator then copied their sandbox to article space, and moved it back to article space again after I draftified it. - Arjayay (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Several hits on the name, but nothing about a musician. Sourcing used now in the article is Imdb, Spotify and Wikipedia, none of which are acceptable sources. I don't see musical notability, no charted singles, no reviews of the music, no awards won. Just not meeting notability criteria. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira Bridge collapse

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Events, Transportation, and Brazil. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a big deal in Brazil. The Portuguese Wikipedia article shows the bridge was still in the news 2 months later. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - last article was June 1.^[10] Lack of a replacement is prolonging the coverage. You can easily find a lot of Brazilian news coverage by searching Google Brazil for "Ponte Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Literally found an article from today. The fact anyone thought this was routine is very surprising to me. [11] SportingFlyer T·C 16:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A cursory look at the area geography shows the importance of this bridge and that to cross again, it's either a ferry trip or a 60 mile or 150 mile drive to the next upriver or downriver bridge crossings. This isn't routine, and this would be the equivalent of the Mackinac Bridge in Michigan being compromised, forcing a long detour or the re-launch of ferry services. It's an important transportation corridor and definitely notable. Nathannah • 📮 16:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into new article on Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira Bridge The bridge itself has a substantial Portuguese language article, and we should too; and it makes sense to me that the collapse ought to go into that article as a major section. Mangoe (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could easily have both - the bridge collapse was a major event. SportingFlyer T·C 19:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Do a bit of research before arbitrarily nominating an article for AfD. Not routine in any way. ^EF⁵ 20:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nowhere near a routine kind of news event. Nominator is a new user who has hit the ground running and creates lots of these AfDs through copy-paste or text expanding and wastes precious community resources. Difficult to detect as they keep emptying their talk page. Admin or other intervention appreciated. Also for their network. I have no clue who of these are socks of whom. gidonb (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Oyeniyi

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

Fails WP:NBUSINESS as sources cited are not WP:RS. While some are primary, the rest are covertly sponsored pieces. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am currently working to improve the article by adding reliable, independent third-party sources, including reports from *The Guardian Nigeria*, *The Nation*, *Punch*, *Voice of America*, *Vanguard*, and coverage of the National Student Entrepreneur Awards. I also plan to add inline citations and expand the article’s coverage to better meet WP:GNG and WP:N. I respectfully request that the nomination be kept open to allow for these additions. Nnamdi93 (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnamdi93 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ba. (band)

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

Still unsourced after 7 years. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't qualify for WP:MUSIC as the only readily available sources discussing this band are from the band. RandFreeman (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep: A small search yielded at least one source not from the band confirming their signing with Sony Music Entertainment Finland. I'm imagining that, an in depth search would probably give more results that aren't directly sourced by the subjects, given the recent albums, and signing and releases with a major music producer, there will probably be increased notability in the coming months, and likely more sources. I would say give it a few months and revisit this to see if there are any changes. If it's been there for seven years, an additional six months doesn't seem like a big deal for me. Foxtrot620 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lithuania. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Lithuanian Wikipedia article has seven references. Have those been considered and examined? Left guide (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra Nath Mahto

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC; never won an election and there is no non-routine coverage outside of his political candidacy. I didn't PROD because the creator has contested draftification of a different article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Jharkhand. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I haven't done a before, but redirecting to Ranchi Lok Sabha constituency#2024 should be an acceptable ATD. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IDP Hotcourses

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

This should be merged with Hotcourses Group which is the original name of the organization before being sold and rebranded. Article title can be changed to the current name after the merge Ednabrenze (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Ednabrenze (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Removed from the deletion sorting list for Academics and educators as this is not a person. Jahaza (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, Websites, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nomination Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Petre Luscalov

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Lacks SIGCOV in independent sources; I searched Google News and ProQuest. However, he contributed a screenplay to the 1981 film "Fiul munților", which is potentially notable. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Romania. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He had an article on rowiki, but it was deleted in 2012 by CSD A1. Fiul munților (the book version) and Iubire interzisă (another book by him) are both in the Library of Congress, but the links on the page don't seem to work for me. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 13:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 14:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Poking around has mostly convinced me that the Mihail Sadoveanu novel Ostrovul Lupilor is notable, and we don't even mention it in his selected works! I'm not voting one way or the other here, but I think it's very likely that Luscalov meets WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST for his screenwriting work. There are mentions of Luscalov in Scînteia and in România Liberă; see archives searches [12] [13]. I don't have full access, but the snippets suggest that there might be deeper critical commentary of his work here. Someone with access could verify and search other sources in the Arcanum archives. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gillikin Country

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

Article contains one reliable secondary source about the etymology. Not significant coverage. Only other thing I found was an entry in a ScreenRant list: [14], ScreenRant is a WP:VALNET site. Suggesting a merge to Land of Oz#Gillikin Country.

See also previous AfDs for the other Oz countries: Quadling, Winkie, Munchkin. Mika1h (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Mika1h (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic theology on the body

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

This article is original research/synthesis through-and-through and has not substantially changed from its original form in 2008, which was previously nominated for deletion and kept on dubious grounds—WP:ILIKEIT, the original author of the article declaring his topic to be kept, and another who unfortunately simply did not understand that the content of the article is original research.

Speaking from my professional qualifications as a Catholic theologian: The term "theology of the body" (not "theology on the body", which appears to be a name a user made up moving the page in 2020 and sounds like bad English at best) refers properly to a series of addresses made by Pope John Paul II. The article identifies a grab bag of Patristic and medieval sources as proponents of a discrete "theology of the body" which they were collectively developing as opposed to being various sources—some of whom were close collaborators, such as Ambrose and Augustine, and some of whom were at odds—who at times spoke of issues that today may be called theological anthropology. The verifiability of the references has been unclear for years as the Talk page reveals.

It may be possible to invoke WP:TNT here—I think it is possible to have an encyclopedic article on the history of Christian views of the human body—but as it is, this is original research, not a history of Christian anthropology. M.A.Spinn (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. M.A.Spinn (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that this title is malformed, and further that I would expect JPII's writings to be the PRIMARYTOPIC here. So, maybe a redirection is in order? Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a separate article for JPII's writings. And of course, the difference is that the JPII article isn't original research and is about a notable topic with a body of secondary literature associated with it whereas the article I have nominated is a case of original research. Deleting and making a redirect to that article or even Christian anthropology may be appropriate. M.A.Spinn (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be some sort of SYNTH at work... The Church has various positions on the human body, but this doesn't seem to be related to that. Most of the opening paragraphs are unsourced, then go on quoting primary texts with sourcing. There's something here, as the Church has discussed the human body and how it should be viewed, but this doesn't seem to cover it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, starting with the lead, the first sentence is straight up wrong (no one outside of this article says "theology on the body") and furthermore the second sentence "The dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, defined in Pope Pius XII's 1950 apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus, is one of the most recent developments in the Catholic theology of the body" is simply nonsense (even if it were sourced!)—a doctrine happening to involve bodies does not make it "theology of the body." So the article taking a bunch of random sources and insisting they represent a consistent development of a particular doctrine is 100% a WP:SYNTH issue. M.A.Spinn (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a classic SYNTH: throwing together a few isolated sources into an essay. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Theology of the Body: as a plausible search sequence for the proposed target. Eliminates the WP:OR and WP:NOESSAY problems in this article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I think is also a suitable thing to do and I did happen upon the article expecting it to be about JPII's ToB and not an essay about an historical grabbag of sources. M.A.Spinn (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 14:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems to me that the proper question here is whether there are RS discussing the history of a theology of the body as framed on the page and outwith/beyond a specific address by Pope J-P 2. The answer to that is clearly yes, this source and this source and probably others. Not everything has to be framed as the thing that !delete !votes want.

That said, for goodness sake don't do references on a page like that. References are to assist the reader, layout like that hurts my soul. It's not necessary, it's not clever or helpful. JMWt (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still, this would be a WP:TNT case. The article is not a history of Christian attitudes toward the human body (to which the term "theology of the body" does not properly refer); it's an essay about how random Church Fathers anticipate the author's interpretation of John Paul II. I absolutely agree however that an article giving an encyclopedic history of Christian views on the body would be a very good idea and someone should write it. Those sources you mentioned look excellent and I would also add The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity by Peter Brown. M.A.Spinn (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Theology of the Body. As stated by Dclemens1971, that would be a likely search sequence for those interested in the topic. Catholic theology on the body is chock full of WP:OR and has various other problems, so I think a redirect is the best option in this case.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Hafez El-Sayed

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Egypt. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging our Egyptian Olympians expert, @Canadian Paul:. Is there anything to find here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been a bit busy, but I will take a look later today to see what I can find on the three I was pinged on. Canadian Paul 17:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, perhaps to Weightlifting at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's 52 kg. There is a lot of coverage of him as part of various sporting teams in the mid-1980s, but the commonality of his name (he usually goes by just El-Sayed Hafez) makes it difficult to pinpoint articles with a specific focus on him with just a brief search. I'm confident that I could find appropriate coverage given more time, but until that coverage is located, a redirect seems fine. Canadian Paul 03:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 14:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Coffee

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

This article does not present real encyclopedic information. Wikipedia not a blog for trivial articles. Ednabrenze (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Companies. Ednabrenze (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial prank that has no lasting significance and lacks independent sources to meet WP:GNG, no useful redirect target. Schazjmd (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Sultan Abdul Samad, Petaling Jaya

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

Last AfD was in 2007, we are now a lot stricter on high schools. Could not find SIGCOV to meet WP:NSCHOOL. 3 of the sources merely confirm students winning in a competition and not actual coverage of the school. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This article only mentions about the student competition, which itself doesn't cover much notability about the school. Galaxybeing (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KOSPINT

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus. Searching in google news and books for "Kolej Sains Pendidikan Islam Negeri Terengganu" yielded insufficient coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first nomination (of the three it has had) was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kospint; the article was renamed during that 2009 nomination (which ended as "keep" under that era's lower standards). (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Chizoba Vincent

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:NPOET as some of the sources cited are his own writing and the bunch of other are non WP:RS. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Poetry, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject fulfills notability criteria in Nigerian audiovisual system as Cinematographer, Film Director.Cinelatina (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Riding the Storm: The Very Best of the Noise Years 1983–1995

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

No independent RS on the page for many years. Not seeing much to suggest that this compilation album meets the notability criteria for inclusion JMWt (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Małgorzata Rosiak

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. The only sources provided here are sports-reference.com and turozmawiamy ("We are talking here"), a site operated by the government of Silesia which published an interview with Rosiak, which is to say it is not a reliable or independent source (see the archived version here). Nothing further found in my WP:BEFORE search other than coverage of her snowboard-making company in which she is mentioned in passing. The PL Wiki articles contains no sourcing that would address this. FOARP (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Poland. FOARP (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Polish wiki, she was junior vice-world champion and a 20-time national championship medalist (mostly gold). I have zero doubt a newspaper search would bring up SIGCOV. If only we looked... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite clear per the nom that they in fact looked for sources. Please give WP:GOODFAITH. Let'srun (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear that newspaper archives were searched. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I have zero doubt a newspaper search would bring up SIGCOV. If only we looked" - Beannie, Poland is on the internet, it has many internet outlets. It had internet news sites in 1998. If a Google search turns up nothing, then there's probably nothing online.

And yes, insisting that finding nothing means no search was done is a complete failure of WP:AGF. Again. FOARP (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may have had a few sites in 1998, but much of what was published then was (i) not put online and (ii) has since become deadlinks. Someone showed a stat that was something like a third of webpages from 15 years ago are now dead. Now make that 30 years here. Not everything is accessible through a Google search. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So a great time to find these sources tends to be before writing an article about the subject. In contrast simply insisting that the sources must exist is not a strategy that has been regularly working out for anyone lately. FOARP (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know it was acceptable to write articles like this at the time it was published. Do you really think that a runner-up at the junior world championships and 16-time senior national champion would not have been covered at all in Poland? I looked into all four of the Americans who competed in her event in 1998 (several of whom did worse than her) – all of them have abundant SIGCOV in archives (many of those archived stories are not available through Google). Why would Rosiak be different? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you really think that a runner-up at the junior world championships and 16-time senior national champion" - in snowboarding, in 1998? The chances seem pretty good actually. FOARP (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then how come the top Americans in the event all have extensive coverage in archives? And how do the recent Polish Olympians in that sport have SIGCOV as well? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because America is America and Poland is Poland. They won't necessarily cover every topic the same, particularly when we're talking about a sport like snowboarding, which was way more niche and unestablished back then. There were still slopes that were closed to snowboarders in 1998. Joelle Jay has posted a nice review below that covers the local paper coverage well, and there's no SIGCOV in any of it. FOARP (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except Poland covers it in-depth today, and Olympic snowboarding received a good deal of coverage back in 1998 similar to the extent it receives today... BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you should find it easy to find SIGCOV in this case then. Feel free to ping me when you do. FOARP (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's 1998 have to do with anything? I would expect there to be better newspaper coverage for someone from 1998 than 2025 (where sports journalism is dead, and even Sports Illustrated has been disputed as not being reliable anymore...) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snowboarding is still a new sport, back in 1998 it was niche, considered a bit hooliganish, a lot of slopes were closed to boarders back in the 90's. It definitely matters that we're talking about the 90's. FOARP (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was the one who mentioned the dead link percentage to you. "Link Rot: 38% Of Webpages From 2013 Have Vanished" I worry that searching for SIGCOV in the future will be a problem in this online-only era. The Wayback Machine doesn't archive everything and you still have to know what specific URL you're looking for. It would be nice if there was a Google search for archived websites. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is a two-way street. I mentioned this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moujhed Fahid Khalifa at 13:21 and then it was AfDed at 13:31? That's not even accounting for the time it might have taken for FOARP to see my comment. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You posted at 12:48, not 13:21. Just how long do you think it takes to go through the first ten pages of GHits, GBooks, and GNews per WP:BEFORE D1 when none of them say much at all about the subject and/or are obvious mirrors of this site? Do you really think people need to spend longer than ~20 minutes when there are no sources? FOARP (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did a search of her local catchment SBC and got lots of routine mentions, but nothing SIGCOV in all of the first 20 hits and all hits from 1998.
Passing mention in a quote by another competitor and in stats lines: [15].
Simple passing mentions: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45].
Passing mentions and a quote: [46][47][48].
Brief, somewhat more detailed interview-based coverage as a minor (YOUNGATH): [49]
Very brief award announcement: [50]
Statement issued by Rosiak: [51].
If even her local newspapers aren't covering the subject in detail, why would we expect further coverage to exist elsewhere? JoelleJay (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karlo Belak

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

Footballer who only played in lower leagues of Slovenia and his homeland, Croatia. Regarding secondary sources, I found Germanijak, which is far from SIGCOV. I found another news coverage on RadioNG, but it's about an artist from Okučani, thus certainly not the same person. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Croatia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Germanijak link is an interview with him, he is also covered here. He is best known for playing in Europe with Milsami and was also covered [52] [53] and lesser coverage [54] [55] [56] Two other articles, one from Zadar and one from Moldova, appeared in searches but had digitally rotted. But there is more than enough for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 14:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of gangs in Australia

AfDs for this article:

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

I BLAH'd this to Gangs in Australia and was reverted. This page is an mess of original research seeking to force every Australian gang, regardless of whether they are notable, into some category. There's a section for Hispanic gangs, as if that's a term we use in Australia. The Honoured Society, The Carlton Crew and various other ethnic groups are lumped in with White Supremacists. Lebanese gangs are called mafia (which the sources don't state), and lumped in with Triads and Tongs. Gangs are labelled as being "Indigenous-based", regardless of what the sources say, because hey we're already doing a tonne of original research, why not keep going.
I'm coming here seeking consensus to either WP:TNT it or to restore the redirect to Gangs in Australia.
Ps, there is a discussion currently at Talk:List_of_gangs_in_Australia#RfC:_somewhat_racist_framing which led me to BLAH it in the first place. TarnishedPath^talk 12:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 12:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have to say that I agree with the nominator that this article is extremely problematic, to the point where WP:TNT is warranted. There is little of substance here that isn't already present in Gangs in Australia from what I can see, so I don't feel bad about not leaving a redirect either. If a reader really wants to see them laid out in bullet list form, that's what Category:Gangs in Australia is for after all. MediaKyle (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Driebergen

AfDs for this article:

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

My concerns about this person's notability still hasn't eased since the previous AFD discussion, which resulted in "kept". Re-reading the discussion, the "keep" votes aren't without caution if not suspicion.

One promised to improve the article or something (to further verify this person's notability), but I still don't see logs of edits made by that voter. Another is now blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Another cited WP:NACTOR, which is what I was unwilling to challenge then due to lack of votes favoring either deletion or redirection.

I re-raised my concerns recently not too long ago:

Transcluding from Talk:Ben Driebergen

I'm concerned again about this person's notability. The following I cannot use to verify because they are just interviews, i.e. primary sources, which neither WP:GNG nor WP:NBASIC would allow such sources to be counted: Ent Weekly (another), Pajiba. Screen Rant (source) is discouraged per WP:RSP#Screen Rant. Reality Tea displays just his brief profile. I was able to listen to the Idaho Statesman article; it just previews his then-upcoming The Challenge appearance. Maybe I'm doubtful again about this person, but the reliable sources verifying his general/basic notability have become scarce. George Ho (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Since then, I've yet to see my concerns readdressed. To challenge the past assumption that WP:NACTORS suffices, this person must also comply with WP:NBASIC per WP:BIOSPECIAL. I've still yet to see reliable independent sources verify his notability in Survivor: Winners at War and/or The Challenge and/or any other non-television field even as a war veteran.

To make either WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E applicable (or WP:PAGEDECIDE/WP:WHYN/WP:FAILN if neither), this article should be preferably redirected to Survivor: Heroes vs. Healers vs. Hustlers, his winning season at his Survivor debut. George Ho (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Idaho. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say his military service is clearly not notable. No opinion on the Survivor stuff, since I don't watch it.Intothat darkness 13:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to watch it. Already, he won just one season and reappeared as one of established winners in the winners-only season. Well, he didn't win in his second (winners-only) season, but even other winners who also reappeared in that season turn out to be notable for just their own winning seasons (per past AFD discussions) and lack general/basic notability needed for this project. George Ho (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice I only commented on his military service notability, and that because it was included in the Military AfD sort. Nothing else. Intothat darkness 17:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Lots of coverage in Gnews about the Survivor win, from 2017 then again in 2020. Shows sustained coverage. It's a mix of interviews, how he'll spend the money and the usual celebrity news, but he's well-known to the public. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are even discussions in Gscholar and Books about him, studying adversarial networks. I'd say he's more than notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I not surprised about your mentioning of Google results? from 2017 then again in 2020 Ones from 2017 are primarily about him winning and how he won Heroes vs Healers vs Hustlers, which can be already detailed at the season page. Ones from 2020 still refers him as the winner of that season and probably promoted the Winners at War season before the season started. Ones covering his Winners at War gameplay were just recaps and interviews with him.

a mix of interviews, how he'll spend the money Still didn't prevent the article about the Survivor 43 winner from being redirected to the season article (AFD discussion), despite giving all to charity.

he's well-known to the public. As I see, he appeared in Quiet Explosions: Healing the Brain, a documentary film about war veterans and PTSD. Then again, WP:NBASIC. Anyways, with that quote said, any "well-known" Survivor winners that have been redirected to their own winning seasons? What about the Blood vs. Water winner (AFD) or The Australian Outback one (AFD) or...?

There are even discussions in Gscholar and Books about him, studying adversarial networks. Hmm... You're getting there maybe, but... No, wait, the Google Scholar shows just few or several results, including one German database showing info about this book and one turning out to be a student's thesis. Some of the results there are repeated in Google Books, like this one. Well, the sources are just covering his HvHvH gameplay. I've yet to see them cover his gameplay in Winners at War and The Challenge, like his med-evacs there.

Well, I can't help being nitpick-y about your rationale for your "weak keep" vote. I don't know how else to convince you, but then I'll stop here, hoping that someone else besides me can disagree with you. George Ho (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Marwah

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

Non-notable actor. Lacks Wp:SIGCOV. Most of the sources are either passing mentions or non-bylined promotional articles. Wp:NEWSORGINDIA. His acting career consists of two films in which he has non-lead roles, and no award nominations or wins, failing Wp:NACTOR.

His additional credits include non-notable short films and music videos.

He received some press coverage due to his connection with the Ambani and Kapoor families and his marriage but notability is not inherited. Zuck28 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Fashion, India, Delhi, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and New York. Zuck28 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic (geology)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only reference is to a figure in a 1989 book that contradicts modern definition of the Hadean. — hike395 (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — hike395 (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RC Calais

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/RC Calais

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

They are a continuation of another club, Calais RUFC. SportsLover1967 (talk) 11:06, 2 July 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 July 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no actual reason for deletion has been specified, and it's not clear as to why this should be merged with the other article as they are separate clubs. SportingFlyer T·C 14:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are the same. Same Stadium, Same colors and identical branding. SportsLover1967 (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The club is only 2 years old. SportsLover1967 (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer. No reason to delete. Giant Snowman 18:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. They are the same team. 94.196.144.75 (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Van Zant

AfDs for this article:

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

Could not find any SIGCOV to approve the subject's notability. Htanaungg (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and West Virginia. Htanaungg (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to West Virginia Mountaineers baseball#Head coaches, in which the subject is listed. Fails GNG due to a lack of SIGCOV. Willing to reconsider if additional coverage is made available, so please ping me. Frank Anchor 12:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep per the coverage identified by WikiOriginal-9. The first two references get the subject past the GNG finish line. Not by a lot, but enough to establish standalone notability. I consider the third to be a WP:ROUTINE transactional announcement. Frank Anchor 16:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He was a two-time Big East Conference Baseball Coach of the Year and was the head coach at WVU from 1995 to 2012. I would be shocked if there wasn't SIGCOV on him. The problem is that online newspaper archives in WV are garbage. Take a look at the map of hits for "Greg Van Zant" on Newspapers.com. WV is blank (literally 0 hits). Not even a single passing mention for Greg Van Zant in WV even though that's where most of the coverage should be. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am in complete agreement that there "should" be SIGCOV on him but we can't just assume it exists. If nothing is found while the AFD is listed, redirecting preserves the page history to allow the article to be restored when and if SIGCOV is found and incorporated. Frank Anchor 15:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm just assuming. I would probably bet my life on there being SIGCOV. He has hundreds of passing mentions/transactional listings in other states, but literally 0 passing mentions/transactional listings in WV at all (where the SIGCOV would most likely be). His controversy with WVU star quarterback Pat White was even covered in other states but not in WV. If this doesn't qualify for NEXIST, I'm not really sure what would? I know NEXIST doesn't really work for sportspeople anymore though... I mean he even has a "fan" site (gvz-sucks.com) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is some SIGCOV I found on a Google search. [57][58][59] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WikiOriginal-9. Billcasey905 (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erixon Kabera

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

Death alone does not make someone notable. It is a case of WP:BIO1E - The9Man ^Talk 10:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 10:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rwanda-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The shooting might be notable, the individual mentioned here is very routine. Outside of the death, there is no coverage about him...Even the shooting was rather recent, I'm not sure it meets notability at this time. Rather routine event, no criminal charges laid. The investigation found no wrong-doing, so there isn't really much else to show notability. Tragic even, but not quite notable for our standards. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Office of Akash Nanda

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

Not notable. Count Count (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Is it a building? Gsearch seems to bring up a legal office. I don't see notability... I would have speedied this, for the whole one line of text it is. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete as borderline gibberish. Whatever it is, there's no claim of notability anyway. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd like to note, for the record, that the creator attempted to short-circuit this discussion by moving the page into draftspace within a few hours of the initial nomination — I've reverted the move, since that's not how the AFD process works, but wanted it on the record. Individual law offices are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but this is not citing any WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing to establish notability here, and it can't just stay in draft form since I'm not seeing anything in a Google search that suggests any kind of salvageability. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Nanda

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

No indication that the person is notable. Count Count (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Odisha. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as noted, notability claim seems to be "is a lawyer". Sources are weak, and there's a long history of adding spam blogs to this article by a variety of sock accounts. Can't find any other sources. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and simple:Akash Nanda was also deleted Laura240406 (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Practicing lawyer, nothing showing notability. Search only brings up social media accounts. Appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd like to note, for the record, that the creator attempted to short-circuit this discussion by moving the page into draftspace within a few hours of the initial nomination — I've reverted the move, since that's not how the AFD process works, but wanted it on the record. Individual lawyers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but this is not citing any WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing to establish notability here, and it can't just stay in draft form since I'm not seeing anything in a Google search that suggests any kind of salvageability. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: WP:SNOW and could have been A7. - The9Man ^Talk 17:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haydaryan

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

This doesn't seem like it exists. AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, and Iran. AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shivering Spines

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

I had a look for sources, but can't find anything substantial about this band to improve an article. The original version of this looks WP:G11ish, but it's been copyedited since then. More recently, editors have been reverting over an WP:A7 tag. If in doubt, come here to discuss, so that's what I'm doing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO with a top 40 hit in a national chart. I've added a WP:GOODCHARTS citation to the article, therefore it is no longer unsourced. ResonantDis_tortion 20:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communicative assent

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Went to AFD in 2012, and has barely improved since then. A google search brings up other meanings, including legal. No attempt has been made to explain exactly what is means. Blackballnz (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stormind Games

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

I believe it clearly fails WP:NCORP. This is the closest thing to SIGCOV I can find (though, ironically, not used in the article at all), but other than that it appears to be entirely trivial or not fulfilling WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability is not inherited from a company's games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some other useful articles. [60] [61] [62] [63][64]. Are they helping? Thank you EneaCirce (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see this discussion for further context. Noteworth bits include the article creator having a WP:COI and generally getting advice and getting some general advice that this probably isn't meeting WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH, neither of which prevented the draft getting published apparently. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Perley

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

Not really seeing much which shows that the subject meets the notability standards for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being. I contribute to the topic area and can say there are reliable sources that exist on the subject to meet notability standards. If need be, I can expand the article soon with the available sources. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have some sources please share them here so we can assess them against the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bushra Amiwala

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject seems to either fail wikipedia:Notability, or just barely clear it. Being at best a borderline-case for notability, I thought it best to nominate it so the community can assess whether it meets the standards or should be deleted. SecretName101 (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United States of America, and Illinois. SecretName101 (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since her office is not an inherent notability, there is a burden for the sum of everything she has done to be enough to establish notability. I find myself unable to discern which end of the threshold she currently falls on. SecretName101 (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan women's national under-20 football team

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

This article lacks reliable sources, is very short, not maintained or updated, and fails to establish notability. It appears to be a non-notable topic with no coverage in independent, reliable sources. Ziad0tarek952005 (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and part merge to Afghanistan women's national football team, should be simply enough to take some of the information which is viable and put on the senior woman's article under a new sub heading. Govvy (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Drew

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

Non-notable local county level politician. Aneirinn (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

94 East

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

fails to meet WP:NBAND LR.127 (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LR.127 (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:BAND criteria #2 ("has had a single or album on any country's national music chart") and #6 ("is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians"). This is the band that Prince first recorded with as a teenager. When their recordings were first commercially released a few years later after Prince came to stardom, their one song co-written by Prince reached the Billboard R&B singles chart (see pp. 28 and 30). Since Colonel Abrams and André Cymone were also members, the group satisfies the criterion of having two or more independently notable musicians. As a second choice, if the decision is not to keep, redirect to Prince (musician)#1975–1984: Beginnings and breakthrough. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Bryant

AfDs for this article:

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

3rd nomination, first being delete second being redirected but somehow the article is still up. Fails notability and just because she is dead and a daughter of a popular NBA player doesn't mean she warrants a wikipedia article, what makes her sister who is somewhat more notable not have a wikipedia article? Megabyte21 (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Basketball, and United States of America. Megabyte21 (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that the references aleady present in the article add up to independent notability. The fact that her father is notable doesn't take away from the fact that she is as well. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kobe Bryant as the previous AfD did. Notaoffensivename (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable individual. I'm not sure what she would be notable for, other than being the daughter of a famous person that died at age 13.Had she not died, there would be no article, appears to have had a rather routine life for a 13 yr old. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is a hard decision, but agree merging with Kobe Bryant. She does have some significant coverage that could meet notability guidelines but I think it is mainly covering on her tributes after death. Galaxybeing (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kobe Bryant. While it's true Gianna Bryant was full of promise, most of the sources cited in this article were written after her unfortunate passing. This seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E, so I think it's better to merge the information here with the article on her very notable father.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am confused about the statement in the nomination that "what makes her sister who is somewhat more notable not have a wikipedia article?". If her sister meets our notability guidelines and someone wants to write an article about her, she'll have an article. I don't see what that has to do with Gianna's article. Rlendog (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Iron, Indiana

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

Mostly written by an IP editor back in 2007 right after the stub was created, this article is mostly based on, er, "local knowledge", which is to say, on the authority of that editor. I can confirm that the configuration of buildings in the triangle did change, and that's about it. Searching was not fruitful. Mangoe (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget To Highland Township, Vermillion County, Indiana #Geography where this is mentioned at target per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the claim is that the statement in the township article is incorrect, that won't do. Mangoe (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I could find were a few mentions (all trivial) of the Flat Iron Store that stood at the site, all in local news articles from 1943-50. That's not enough for WP:GNG, and even if it were, the place is always referred to as a country store and not a community. I don't think a redirect is helpful because a) this is an unlikely search term and b) we have nothing to say about the place in the township article, other than its name and coordinates. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ElgooG

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable website. The lead lists the definition of a term like a disambiguation page but then all headings list possible meanings. Is this meant to be a page about elgoog.im or Google mirrors? Delete for lack of notability (the added template suggests that the page is about elgoog.im). thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's definitely history for this Google mirror. I know that's an argument to avoid but for something more than 20 years ago with 2 previous AfDs, let's see if any substance holds for today. I don't agree with the weird disambiguation because it's explaining the same website. For instance, a random look into the past edits shows that: Special:Permalink/199047655. – The Grid (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is very little information to expand upon compared to the average Wikipedia article. Other sites with similar names were probably added over time and appear to be different sites from the original. Vacosea (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this website's usage for bypassing Internet censorship in China makes it noteworthy.

2001:8003:1C02:E900:64EC:6E8C:5887:A475 (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there sufficient coverage and notability for a standalone article though? Vacosea (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. 2001:8003:1C02:E900:2D39:9F43:F796:1073 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: what sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is a not non notable website? The ElgooG is a notable website that's have a easter egg by Google or not. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for policy-based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The New Scientist article is fine (now in the article), also have this [65] discussing how it was used to avoid censorship. Should be enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also discussed here [66] and [67] Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diddy ahh blud

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

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV, and both of the 2 sources used in the article are questionable at best. Also largely duplicates Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations, though I'm not sure if this phrase is widely used enough to warrant a redirect. ApexParagon (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Angryapathy (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is notable, and includes some context that a Wiktionary page wouldn't be able to. 2600:6C64:4F3F:D976:D485:2300:170D:20D1 (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary pages can include both usage examples and etymologies. Delete. fx (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT & fails WP:GNG. jolielover♥talk 13:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously ;-; 174.88.47.79 (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really an argument lol. 2600:6C64:4F3F:D976:6DE9:B5CB:E4FF:EC3D (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Commonly used term. It's ok to keep as a stub. Dirty Magazines (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Alexf^(talk) 08:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Diddyahhblud (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe this can be turned into a redirect if people think that is more appropriate idk. VronaMrk30 (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to evidence notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:DICT. Kyleroo (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Glossary of Generation Z slang per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD. Going to tag everyone in discussion to see if they agree with this idea or feel like sticking with their status quo. Angryapathy Jolielover Dirty Magazines Alexf Diddyahhblud PARAKANYAA Kyleroo Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose and still stand by my delete vote, as the term completely fails WP:GNG as it has close to no sources on it. There's nothing worth merging. jolielover♥talk 09:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jolielover I find did one thing. Apparently it is from Kendrick Lamar instead: [68]. It would be worth searching though. Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KYM, Know Your Meme is an unreliable source. Other than that, I find very few mentions of the phrase. I still don't think the term has any relevance. jolielover♥talk 11:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch exonyms

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

Previous discussions don’t seem to be specific to this article - talk page says it is rubbish Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Netherlands. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dutch dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedelis (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this meets the notability requirements of WP:NLIST.

Also, there is ample precedent for this type of article; we have 63 of these articles per Category:Lists of exonyms.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An attempt to delete all of them, a year or two ago, was rejected as too sweeping (some of them, particularly Arabic exonyms, are less WP:DICT than others). —Tamfang (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Communist Electoral Front (Marxist–Leninist)

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

Apparently Portuguese Marxist–Leninist Communist Organization is its alternate name and we already have an article for them Chidgk1 (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Portugal. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portuguese Marxist–Leninist Communist Organization, of which it's part. Bearian (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - FEC(ml) was a notable phenomenon in Portuguese politics, covered in plenty of book sources, and obtained 0.58% of the national vote. --Soman (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Committee for Support to the Reconstruction of the Party (Marxist–Leninist)

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

I have fixed the link to the Portuguese article but that only has one cite whereas to show notability multiple cites are normally required Chidgk1 (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Portugal. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Popular Democratic Union (Portugal), or Left Bloc (Portugal), of which they are constituent groups. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Portuguese ML left around 1974 was a notable phenomenon, and redirecting other later parties just messes up all the chronology of events. It is difficult to find online material today, and these groups were clandestine or semiclandestine. --Soman (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tertulia de Creadores

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

I could not find sources that address the topic directly and exhaustively, either in English or in Spanish. The Spanish article on Wikipedia has the same issue; no indication of notability. JohnMizuki (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Spain. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely opposed to the deletion. The article is relevant, these literary gatherings are a fundamental part of Spanish literature and —I would add— of universal literature in Spanish. A simple internet search yields numerous sources that discuss the topic. I would also like to point out that the user who initiated this AfD also opened a CdB on eswiki, similarly claiming that "the article didn't seem relevant and that they couldn't find references on the subject" — references which, quite clearly, do exist. CarlosEduardoPA (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I didn't say that I couldn't find references. I said that I couldn't find references that "address the topic directly and exhaustively". All I can find is passing mentions. JohnMizuki (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BARE - I found quite few sources on Google books under "Tertulia de Creadores" -wikipedia. Whether that's significant enough coverage is open to debate. Maybe I should join MoMA again to be able to read the book about them. For what it's worth, I'm not sure that tertulias are a Thing in the Anglophone World. Bearian (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J. Eric Robinson

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

Assistant professors are seldom notable under NPROF, and I see no evidence of NPROF notability here. The subject has one published book, but I did not find reviews of it. (If reviews could be found, then redirection to a stub on the book could be a sensible alternative to deletion.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Missouri. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page's creator, Approved2025, has been sockblocked as part of an undisclosed paid editing group here. G5 was not used as another user had made significant contributions. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He seems to pass GNG. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not seem to pass GNG, unable to find significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Additionally the subject does not seem to meet any of the eight criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, nor any of the four criteria for WP:NAUTHOR. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed, not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, doesn't meet WP:NPROF, and I couldn't find any reviews of his novel, so doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an assistant professor, he's not tenured, and we normally don't consider that notable. Is there significant coverage of his other work? Ping me. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article seems to be entirely about academic activities so we should consider this according to WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Local coverage of his public outreach activities does not amount to WP:PROF#C7 notability. His assistant professor position is not promising and Google Scholar could not even find his publications, at least one of which appears to be in a local historical society newsletter rather than a peer-reviewed journal. The article does not even mention the existence of books so WP:AUTHOR is out of reach. Very far from notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skip Macalester is a book, a novel, but I can't find decent coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject meets WP:GNG through multiple independent, reliable sources with significant coverage. Features in BBC Travel, St. Louis Public Radio, New York Times, Literal Magazine, and the New York Public Library blog reflect non-trivial attention to his work in African American history and public education. He is the author of Skip Macalester, recognized by the American Booksellers Association (2006 Paperback Pick) and recipient of the 2005 Illinois Arts Council Literary Award. Though he may not meet WP:NPROF narrowly, the breadth of coverage and public impact satisfies general notability. BrandonMorgan21 (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the above indicated sources:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
BBC Travel			passing mention	✘ No
St. Louis Public Radio	~ Robinson answers questions about the topic at hand, a link to Robinson's tours is provided directly in-article.		not about Robinson	✘ No
New York Times	~ Robinson gives input about the topic at hand, a plug for Robinson's $20 tours is provided at the end of the article.		not about Robinson, passing mention.	✘ No
Literal Magazine		From [69] "Send us a pitch (200-250 words) of the yet-to-be-written article. Tell us where the piece is heading, and make your opinion known."	the totality of the relevant text is "like in J.E. Robinson’s “Ecstasy”"	✘ No
New York Public Library blog			not about Robinson, just a mention of his book "Skip Macalester" accompanied by a single sentence summary.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

All these sources are currently in the article, none appear to provide significant coverage. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Thank you @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four for the detailed assessment. I will look into locating additional independent, reliable sources that offer significant coverage and may help establish the subject’s notability. BrandonMorgan21 (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source table above pretty much sums it up, non-notable individual. Books are probably too niche to gather much critical attention, so no pass at AUTHOR either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of the Holy Eucharist

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

Doesn't seem to have any really independent sources, indicating a lack of notability.

First source: "The Knights paid a modest amount for the writing and promotion of this article"
Second source", journalist: "In addition to working with the Knights of the Holy Eucharist (knights.org)[...]"
Third source is informing that the bishop (head of the diocese) is working with the Knight

and so on, a mixture of seemingly unreliable partisan sources (Catholic Online), non-independent sources (EWTN), contact information, ...

This seems to be a local organisation of just 12 people in 2016[70], not some large organization spread across the US or multiple countries. Fram (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Nebraska. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Most of the Catholic media would of course have an association with the org discussed here, but I'd still consider them independent, as they have editorial control over what they publish. Otherwise, I didn't find anything (sourcing seems to be only in religious/Catholic media). Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But even within the Catholic media, which ones do you consider to have reliable, notable, independent coverage of this group? First three sources at least don't qualify, which ones do? Most seem to be from the diocese of Lincoln, which is the diocese working together with the Knights (see source 3). Fram (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable (only 12 members are in the order), but with the caveat that Roman Catholic media is actually fairly reliable. Bearian (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many of them are, e.g the Lincoln diocese one is reliable, just not independent in this case: but I only called out Catholic Online which seems to be some fringe outlet (feel free to correct me) Fram (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations

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

Since this article was created in 2011, it has been based almost entirely on citations to sources either from the ICOR itself or from its affiliate members. Attempts to find coverage in reliable secondary source turned up very little. Neither of the cited secondary sources in this article provide significant coverage, only giving the ICOR a passing reference in the wider context of another subject. A cursory Google Scholar search brought up a few self-published Marxist word documents, and one book about German political parties that only mentions the ICOR in passing.

As I have been unable to find significant coverage of this international organisation in reliable sources, and as notability is not inherited from any of its affiliated organisations, I do not think this meets the notability criteria for organisations and am nominating it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Morocco, South Africa, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Iran, India, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe there may be a language / coverage issue, as this is English Wikipedia, and there are two or three English-speaking organizations within ICOR. I will look into it this week. Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most online sources I found were either non-independent or were not in-depth. The one book cited in the article was written by Stefan Engel, former chairman of the MLPD, a member organization of ICOR. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources cited by Castroonthemoon are not in-depth (and the last one doesn't seem reliable), and I don't see why we should make an exception here; they have brought up the possibility of a merge with the MLPD, but firstly I don't think they're really related that much, and secondly half of the ICOR article is based on primary sources and the other half is based on passing mentions, so it would be WP:UNDUE. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not looking good for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have looked into international reports on the organization. There's a surprising amount of information surrounding the group's involvement in Syria, and the hospital that the group built. Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards Keep Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Castroonthemoon can cite specific sources with significant coverage, I'm leaning delete. The only mention in Swiss media is [71]. Toadspike [Talk] 08:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources used in the article, I believe [72][73][74][75][76] satisfy requirements. Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a single-sentence passing mention: "Finally, anarchist volunteers organized another unit at the end of March 2017, the International Revolutionary People's Guerrilla Forces (IRPGF), declared as an "informal anarchist armed organization" whose purpose of armed struggle was placed beyond Kurdish issues, in a global perspective." (via Google Translate). The second link is exactly the same page as the first. The third is another single-sentence passing mention ("Hinter dem Projekt steht das linke Bündnis "Internationale Koordinierung revolutionärer Parteien und Organisationen" (ICOR), das um die marxistisch-leninistische Partei Deutschlands (MLPD) gebildet wurde.") The fourth consists entirely of quotes from someone who has been "supported" by ICOR, which is not independent coverage. The fifth isn't independent either – it has no byline and is basically a call for donations by the head of ICOR, ending with their bank info.

None of these sources satisfy the requirements of the GNG or NCORP. Toadspike [Talk] 05:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I believe that the fact that they receive coverage satisfies notability requirements. It's a niche, political topic that isn't going to receive much coverage, especially by Western press, thus I believe that WP:IAR applies in this scenario. I don't think we will find a point of agreement on this, but I think that merging this article into the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany article is worth considering, per my POC below. Castroonthemoon (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Consideration. I believe the article should be kept, but to those in-favor of deletion, I think there's a solid case to be made that the page should be merged with the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany article, given that they seem to be the driving force behind most of the organizations actions and statements, as well as the fact that Stefan Engel (or his wife), the former chairman of MLPD, comes up almost everywhere ICOR does Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bear-girl of Krupina

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

Very few sources, very likely a hoax. Should be redirected to Feral child. Newklear007 (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Newklear007 (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Feral child. The German version seems to have more reliability. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 14:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: historic possible myth, but with sufficient sourcing for notability. Worth having an article to explain that her status. Article sourcing can probably be improved from the German article. PamD 08:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourcing on English and German article evidences notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mamaison Hotels & Residences

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

Article created by WP:SPA. References provided do not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG, as these are all directly from the company itself. Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. C 679 10:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Czech Republic, and Hungary. C 679 10:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as purely promotional. Jdcooper (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The hotel brand Mamaison Hotels & Residences has received significant coverage through many reviews of its hotels.
1. Phillips, Adrian; Phillips, Monika (2025-06-18). "Mamaison Hotel Andrassy Budapest". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-08-20. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Few hotels can claim that they were designed by an Olympic champion; the Hotel Andrassy is one of them. Its Bauhaus building is the work of Alfréd Hajós, who won a pair of gold medals at the Athens Games in 1896 for swimming. The hotel itself is an intimate four star-plus boutique property on Andrássy út, just a stone's throw from City Park."
2. Phillips, Adrian; Phillips, Monika (2025-06-18). "Mamaison Residence Izabella Budapest". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Residence Izabella remains one of the city’s best aparthotels. It’s modern and welcoming, and has good facilities – including a comfortable lounge area and an excellent gym – and stands near the Unesco-listed Andrássy út. The ground floor also received a refurbishment in 2024, meaning it’s more spick and span than ever."
3. Sullivan, Paul (2017-10-01). "Mamaison All-Suites Spa Hotel Pokrovka Moscow". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "This modern, classy boutique enjoys a decent location in Moscow’s Basmanny district. The sumptuous suites have fully equipped kitchenettes, making them a good option for long-term stays, although there is also a good restaurant on-site, as well as a comprehensive spa area with a pool and hammam."
4. Lussiana, Mary (2019-09-01). "Mamaison Hotel Le Regina Warsaw". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  This is a former property of the hotel. It was listed on the website in 2017 but not in 2025. The review notes: "Unique among Warsaw’s best hotels for its location on the cobbled streets of the historical 'New Town', this 61-roomed hotel housed in an ancient palace brims with a sense of place. Its luxurious interiors include a swimming pool and the justifiably acclaimed La Rotisserie restaurant."
5. Waterson, Luke (2019-06-01). "Mamaison Residence Šulekova Bratislava". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Chirpy minimalist apartments spread across this rambling residence intertwined in the maze of leafy, hilly streets of the Slavín neighbourhood, close to Bratislava castle. With plenty of space and great city views, it gets the thumbs up as one of the city’s best aparthotels."
6. "Mamaison Hotel Le Regina Warsaw". Michelin Guide. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Not to be confused with the British Malmaison chain — MaMaison, no L, is an Eastern European phenomenon, specializing in converting historical buildings to high-end boutique hotels. The markets they’re in are under-served in that particular category, to put it mildly; there’s nothing else in Warsaw, for example, to match the sleek modernity and first-class luxury of the MaMaison Hotel Le Regina."
7. "Mamaison Residence Sulekova Bratislava". Michelin Guide. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Given the relative dearth of boutique hotels in this part of Europe, and in particular the tardiness with which international travelers have embraced Slovakia, it’s a bit surprising, honestly, to find that one of Bratislava’s first small contemporary design hotels is such a strong entry. But that’s exactly what the MaMaison Residence Sulekova is — thirty-two relatively spacious apartments (not rooms, apartments) in a bright and breezy modern style, located in a residential neighborhood right in the heart of old town Bratislava, walking distance from the Danube and the Bratislava Castle."
8. "Fodor's Expert Review: Mamaison Hotel Andrássy Budapest". Fodor's. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Budapest's best boutique hotel is housed in a Bauhaus-style structure built in 1937 and once used as an orphanage. Most rooms are large, but the only nod to actual design are the lighting fixtures."
9. Narizhnaya, Khristina. "Mamaison All-Suites Spa Hotel Pokrovka". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2021-12-08. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "The luxury spa hotel is the perfect choice for business travelers as well as those after a romantic weekend with lots of pampering. The two-level Algotherm spa and its wide range of treatments are the highlights here."
10. Banfalvi, Carolyn. "MaMaison Hotel Andrássy". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2024-12-13. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Under the Communists, this four-story, art-deco building from the 1930s was a drab hotel for visiting politicians from other Eastern Bloc countries. Now, it's an attractive upscale boutique hotel that makes for a great base. ... There's also a wonderful terrace that's open during the warm months. A sister property, MaMaison Residences Izabella, is nearby and has 38 self-catering apartments; since the Hotel Andrássy has no gym, guests can use the facilities there."
11. "Mamaison Residence Sulekova Bratislava". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2025-01-26. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Mamaison Residence Sulekova is situated in a quiet residential district of Bratislava. It offers stylish, air-conditioned apartments, free WiFi and castle views. Studios and apartments feature contemporary furniture and wooden floors. Fully-equipped kitchens come with a coffee maker and dining furniture."
12. "Mamaison Hotel Le Regina Warsaw". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2025-01-16. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Mamaison Hotel Le Regina Warsaw is a 5-star establishment that offers accommodations a quarter mile from Warsaw’s Old Town. Free Wi-Fi is available in the entire hotel. Mamaison Hotel Le Regina Warsaw is housed in a historic building. All rooms are elegantly furnished and include flat-screen satellite TVs."
13. "Mamaison Residence Diana". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "This 4-star property is housed in a beautifully restored 19th-century building, only 220 yards from Warsaw's popular Nowy Świat Street. It offers luxurious suites with free internet and DVD player. Mamaison Residence Diana offers stylishly furnished rooms with a full kitchen area, a living room and a work space."
14. Kiesnoski, Kenneth (2008-07-08). "MaMaison brings homegrown luxury to New Europe". Travel Weekly. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The article notes: "A boutique hotel property is ideally a chic home away from home, and so, true to its name, MaMaison Hotels & Apartments hopes to bring homegrown know-how to operating high-end hideaways in Central and Eastern Europe. MaMaison is a division of Luxembourg-based real estate and hospitality developer Orco Property Group, focusing on "New Europe." ... MaMaison has taken pains to make its properties relevant to the cities they serve. In Warsaw, the Hotel Le Regina (see Room Key) is housed in a reconstructed 17th century palace in the Unesco-protected Old Town that once served as the U.S. Embassy. The Andrassy Hotel in Budapest, meanwhile, occupies a 1937 Bauhaus structure designed and built by Alfred Hajos, an architect and native of Hungary who also won two gold medals for swimming at the first modern Olympic Games in 1896."
15. "Hotel Check: MaMaison Andrássy Hotel, Budapest". Travel Weekly Australia. No. 107. 2009-03-13. p. 30. ISSN 1833-5179. EBSCOhost 43564273.
  The review notes: "Located on Andrássy Avenue, which is likened to Paris's Champs Ëlysées, this only-just fíve-star hotel has been recently refurbished, features 63 rooms and seven suites and is Hungary's only member of the Small Luxury Hotels of the World brand. It's location requires a short foray by public transport in order to reach the centre, or a 20 minute stroll past some wonderful sites. ... There are more romantic, authentic hotels in Budapest, which also offer a greater range of facilities. However, given the Andrássy's price point, its level of service and high degree of comfort in the room, it's a very good proposition."
16. Anderson, Robert (2004-03-05). "Orco builds on its Czech roots: Following its listing in 2000 and initial success in Prague, group plans rapid growth in central Europe with mid-market dwellings and new office projects". Financial Times. ProQuest 249526071.
  The article notes: "Typically Orco uses its extended stay hotel brand MaMaison Residences to grab its first foothold in new markets, before moving into office and residential development. ... In hotels, its Orco Hotel Collection boutique chain and MaMaison Residences operate in Budapest and Prague. This year an Orco Hotel Collection will open in Warsaw and MaMaisons in Bratislava and Bucharest. The group plans to expand the MaMaison idea to Moscow, Kiev, Belgrade and Sofia to follow foreign investors as they start to open up new markets in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development backed this concept last year by committing Euros 10m for a 35 per cent stake in MaMaison."
17. Oswald, Stephanie (2008-08-10). "Pokrovka treats biz travelers to luxury". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "With just 84 rooms in all, The Pokrovka Hotel is a MaMaison boutique property that sits walking distance from Red Square, subway access and plenty of shopping; plus, anything else you desire is simply a concierge call away. Other impressive highlights of MaMaison's latest creation: Each level of the seven-floor Pokrovka features a fabulous, huge, black-and-white signature photo mural—follow closely and you'll see a storyline."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mamaison Hotels & Residences 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) 08:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ORCO or CPI Property Group: Cunard found many sources that include the word "Mamaison" but most of them are not talking about the organization itself. They talk about the buildings that predate the organization (sources: 1, 4, 8, 10) or they are short reviews of the hotel without commenting on the organization (2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17). This leaves us with #6 and #16 as the only two sources that are useful, and 16 already lends itself well to merging to Orco. Moritoriko (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further discussion of the sourcing Cunard identified and whether it meets the requisite depth
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ORCO per Moritoriko. The sources listed above are mostly about the buildings, not the organization, see WP:ORG#Significant_coverage_of_the_company_itself. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:33, 2 July 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 Procedural Close as out of order: Draft pages are not subject to the AfD process. See WP:Miscellany for deletion instead. —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)‎[reply]

Draft:Timeline of Donald Trump's second presidency (2025 Q3)

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

Page already exists Srich0731 (talk) 01:37, 2 July 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.

Maharaja Ganga Singh Dental College & Research Centre

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 01:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 01:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Came Upon a Lighthouse

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

I was not able to find any actual reviews for this book that did not have WP:NEWSORGINDIA issues or were not press releases. Fails WP:NBOOK. Redirect to author Shantanu Naidu? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moments of Mindfulness

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

Found no reliable sources covering this. The author is notable, so this could redirect there, but it's not mentioned there at the moment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GNOME Dictionary

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

Could not find any sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sea and Coast

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

Non-notable, lacks wp:SIGCOV in secondary reliable sources. The majority of the sources are primary and not in depth. Also the article was created and extensively edited by blocked socks in the past. Zuck28 (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, India, and Delhi. Zuck28 (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the basis of WP:SIGCOV, This topic demonstrate notability and meets WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources demonstrate the notability/has SIGCOV? As far as I can see, I can only count this. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject appears to not meet the notability guidelines WP:GNG. From looking at the sources, they are mainly mentions, listings, partnerships (shown by the last two sources in the article) and etc. this comes from a website whose reliability is questionable, as a site that lists all businesses, and the page is promotional in nature. this source is probably the only one that count towards WP:GNG but it is clear this is not enough. I tried to search for the subject online but failed to find any.ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seems to meet WP:SIGCOV. Fade258 (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Marwah

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable businessperson. The sources are mostly primary/press releases or broken links. Fails Wp:GNG. Created by a blocked user. Zuck28 (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Delhi. Zuck28 (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to be notable but lacks significant coverage. I suggest to improve the article with the notable news links.Almandavi (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 00:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Probably pass the general notability guidelines but doesn't show significant coverage and founded references declare about Advertorial disclaimer which is may be WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Fade258 (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Intuition

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

Nothing to show how the subject company is notable. Plenty of WP:CORPTRIV and a few bits of PR fluff, but nothing WP:SUBSTANTIAL as far as I can see - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United States of America. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Applied Intuition has received significant independent coverage in reliable sources such as Reuters, Bloomberg, and TechCrunch. Easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Move for speedy keep. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 01:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redstar0005: It's all WP:CORPTRIV doing a Google for 'Applied Intuition {Reuters,Bloomberg,TechCrunch}'. If you have anything that's not trivial reporting, please provide it... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rich Smith, here are some! [77][78] (Reuters), [79][80] (Bloomberg), [81][82][83][84](TechCrunch). All of these articles are not just trivial mentions of Applied Intuition but are completely centered around them and their business activities. I could continue naming more satisfactory sources if you wish. I'm not sure if you were searching for the right things when you did, because all of these articles were easy to find. Again, I suggest that the article is kept. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redstar0005: All of those are WP:CORPTRIV... 'standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of changes in share or bond prices ... of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts ... of a capital transaction, such as raised capital'. So again, if you have anything that's not trivial reporting, please provide it... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 10:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rich Smith. The articles from Reuters, Bloomberg, and TechCrunch provide non-trivial coverage by focusing specifically on Applied Intuition’s funding, valuation, business model, and industry role, not just standard notices or brief announcements. They include independent analysis and sustained attention, meeting WP:GNG and exceeding WP:CORPTRIV. Again, I suggest the article is kept. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 19:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The routine coverage standard is usually used to dismiss articles from PR firms that have close financial ties to the companies they report about. Reuters is not a PR firm, and they don't report about every fundraising event from every startup. The nominator has the implication backwards: routine coverage can come in the form of fundraising news, but not all fundraising news is routine coverage.

And independent of all this, This case study that already appears in the article can clearly be used to establish notability. I would need to see something more than a bare assertion that the sources in the article constitute "trivial reporting" in order to change my !vote. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every source is valuations and funding rounds - where is the ORGCRIT? qcne (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I can't agree with assertions that every source is valuations and funding rounds; in fact most are not. After looking over the list of references it seems to me that about two-thirds of sources cover substantial business activities rather than financial reporting. For example: Harvard Business School case study on the company's business model, Bloomberg's analysis of autonomous vehicle simulation technology and industry challenges, coverage of strategic partnerships with major automakers like Isuzu, Axios coverage of military AI products, Breaking Defense analysis of acquisitions, and a recent CNBC piece discussing the company's AI technology and dual-use applications. These sources provide exactly the type of in-depth critical analysis and commentary from major newspapers, trusted academic institutions, and high-quality mainstream websites that establish notability. I think this article definitely should be kept. Soxfanruthian (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM text collapsed

Strong Keep - Disclosure: I am an employee of Applied Intuition and have consistently disclosed this affiliation in all my edits to this article and on my user page.

The nominator's WP:CORPTRIV argument fundamentally mischaracterizes the available sources and fails to recognize substantial coverage that clearly establishes notability under WP:CORP. The claim that all coverage consists of "routine business reporting" ignores multiple sources providing detailed analysis of the company's technology, strategic significance, and industry impact.

Academic recognition establishes clear notability: Harvard Business School published a comprehensive case study on Applied Intuition (ref #5). Academic institutions do not create detailed business case studies for companies lacking significant industry impact or innovative business models. This represents exactly the type of substantial, analytical coverage that WP:CORP requires and directly contradicts claims of trivial coverage.

Technology-focused coverage beyond financial reporting: Multiple sources provide substantial analysis of business operations and technological significance:

Bloomberg's 2018 detailed analysis of autonomous vehicle simulation challenges and the company's role in addressing industry-wide testing limitations (ref #12)
VentureBeat's comprehensive coverage of off-road autonomy technology launch with technical specifications and market analysis (ref #2)
Specialized trade publication coverage in ADAS & Autonomous Vehicle International focusing on machine learning data operations and technical capabilities (ref #26)
Recent substantial coverage of the June 2025 OpenAI strategic partnership, including detailed analysis from Bloomberg examining the technological implications and industry significance of integrating large language models into vehicle intelligence platforms (ref #9)

Strategic industry partnerships demonstrate operational significance: Coverage of partnerships with major automakers provides substantial analysis of business activities that clearly exceed routine reporting:

Nikkei Asia's detailed coverage of Isuzu partnership for Level 4 self-driving trucks (ref #23)
Automotive News Europe's analysis of TRATON partnership for software-defined trucks (ref #24)
Specialized German automotive publication coverage of Audi partnership following Porsche collaboration (ref #22)

Defense sector recognition for national security applications: Recent coverage demonstrates expansion into critical national security applications:

Axios provides substantial analysis of military AI products and strategic significance (ref #19)
Bloomberg recognizes the company among "10 Defense Tech Startups to Watch in 2025" based on technological capabilities (ref #17)
Breaking Defense covers EpiSci acquisition with detailed analysis of AI dogfighting capabilities and military applications (ref #29)

Sustained coverage across multiple years and topics: The reference list spans 2018-2025 with coverage from major publications focusing on technology developments, strategic partnerships, acquisitions, and industry recognition—not just funding announcements. This sustained attention across multiple business cycles and topics demonstrates the type of ongoing coverage that WP:CORP requires.

Financial coverage as evidence of significance: While the nominator dismisses funding announcements as routine, the sustained financial coverage from major publications like Bloomberg, Forbes, and Wall Street Journal spanning multiple funding rounds over seven years actually demonstrates the type of ongoing attention that indicates notability. WP:CORPTRIV does not prohibit all financial coverage—it prohibits trivial financial coverage. When major business publications consistently cover a company's growth trajectory across multiple years, this represents substantial coverage of significant business developments, not routine announcements.

The nominator's assertion that partnerships with 18 of the top 20 global automakers and expansion into defense applications constitute mere "routine business reporting" misapplies WP:CORPTRIV. These represent exactly the "significant business activities" and "major corporate developments" that the policy explicitly recognizes as notable. The Harvard Business School case study alone provides the substantial, analytical coverage that clearly exceeds any reasonable interpretation of the WP:CORPTRIV threshold.

This article meets WP:CORP through multiple independent sources providing substantial coverage of technology, industry impact, and business significance that extends well beyond routine financial reporting.

Request for nomination withdrawal: Given the substantial evidence demonstrating clear notability under WP:CORP, I respectfully request that the nominator consider withdrawing this nomination. The article is supported by multiple independent sources providing substantial coverage that extends well beyond routine business reporting, including academic recognition, detailed technology analysis, and sustained industry coverage across multiple years and topics. Cal-batman (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep there are plenty of articles that establish notability such as TechCrunch, WSJ and more.Darkm777 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a source assessment table would address the disagreement here about the quality of the sources provided in the article and discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]