Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Europe

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Europe|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Europe. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Europe/archive

Purge page cache

watch

General

Dean of Kilmacduagh

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

Fails WP:NLIST, topic is not independently notable from the monastery, and any needed information could be merged to the primary Kilmacduagh monastery article. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Christianity, Europe, and Ireland. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. One and done, right? Hyperbolick (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It should be merged to Kilmacduagh monastery. Fade258 (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kilmacduagh monastery: No reason for this to be a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Union Enlargement Goals for 2040

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

This article is AI-generated. It flags as 89% on undetectable.ai, and shows the characteristic patterns of bolding and lists of three bullet points. I was only able to access the first two of the four citations (citation 3 is paywalled, and citation 4 is broken), and while they do discuss countries joining the EU, neither mentions the year 2040. There's nothing here to salvage. — Moriwen (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Europe. — Moriwen (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG. Neither "Enlargement Goals for 2040" nor "2040 Enlargement Goals" yields any hits on Google or Scholar, so there are certainly no unified "EU enlargement goals for 2040" among major groups/politicians, which I think would be the threshold for having an article independent from Potential enlargement of the European Union]. Anerdw (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't use/evaluate undetectable.ai or any other AI detection tools; they're notoriously unreliable and get a lot of false positives. WP:AIC guidance agrees. Anerdw (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance says not to use it as the sole method of detection, or flag content purely because it was detected by the tool. In this case, I see three other obvious signs: phrases bolded for emphasis in the typical AI style, lots of lists of exactly three bullet points, and citations that don't mention the topic.— Moriwen (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's probably AI generated; I just don't think AI detection tools should be cited in AfDs. Anerdw (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geneviève Jeanningros

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

Fails WP:GNG. She briefly went viral during Pope Francis's funeral, but other than that... she's just a nun. Luxic (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Religion, Christianity, Europe, and France. Luxic (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previous independent in depth coverage here[1], here[2] and here[3]. Pope Francis mentioned her in print[4][5] and she's been mentioned in books about Francis[6][7]. Additional coverage here[8]. Jahaza (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it's worth noting that all those sources only mention her in relation to Pope Francis (or she's mentioned by Francis himself). I still fail to see what would make her notable in her own right, regardless of her connection/friendship with the late pope. Luxic (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough coverage in RS. Not only in books but in The New York Times, The Telegraph, The Washington Post, Agence France-Presse. I added a Reuters and a People.com reference. The article has room for improvement, but notability is proven. It's not just 1E in the pope's funeral. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her ministry with the circus community and her public attention from working with the trans community already cited here have made her notable to the wider public.(talk) (talk)

2024–25 in European women's basketball (A–K)

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

With this title, I would expect Information about the European competitions (for clubs or national teams), not a collection of results of national competitions which just happen to share a continent but are otherwise not related. Seems like a weird way to present these. Fram (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Basketball, Lists, and Europe. Fram (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Almost entirely a difficult to navigate collection of game results and WP:NOTDATABASE so I think this should be deleted. Division of the list by alphabetized country name is also strange; why not by league/division or similar? Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  What do I need to do improve it? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  What do I need to do improve it? Can you give me advice please? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep A lot of info and very useful. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final attempt to reach quorum
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and above. Should have create separate article. Fade258 (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that? How can I improve the article? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You would been create a separate article which is mentioned in respective country above. Please wait until this discussion to be concluded. Fade258 (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Country-specific

Albania

Albania's role in the Kosovo War

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

Unnecessary split from Kosovo War that isn't properly sourced and possivle WP:POVFORK. I don't see any other articles in the format of "...'s role in the Kosovo War". Should be merged back into the Kosovo War page. Laura240406 (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Albania, and Kosovo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Kosova

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

Fails WP:NCORP, but it's a bit harder to tell as not a single reference link works. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Albania. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does appear to exist, but it's simply WP:TOOSOON. Also note apparently there was a Bosnian Air Kosova that operated briefly in 2000. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Bushranger. Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 17:47, 29 May 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kastrati Group Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MBM Port

Others

Andorra

New alerts are automatically placed here, this page is kept as a historic reference.

Articles for deletion

Siege of Jraberd

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

This was BLARed about a month ago by AirshipJungleman29 , however it is not mentioned in the target and thus makes a bad redirect. This is a sufficiently recent BLAR that I'm not going to try to send this to RfD but also don't want to restore it just to send it AfD: the pre-BLAR content to evaluate is at Special:Permalink/1281473075. I cannot find any reasonable sources on which to hang either an article or a mention of the subject at the target page, though I don't read Georgian. Rusalkii (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Georgia (country). Rusalkii (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what's going on here Rusalkii; a redirect is at AfD because it's too recent(?) to go to RfD and because you're not willing to revert the BLAR because you can't justify it being an article? Not sure of the logic. Also, you may want to fix all the broken formatting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects which get sent to RfD after a recent BLAR usually close as "send to AfD instead" and I figured I'd try to skip the middleman this time. I don't think the redirect should exist, because it's misleading about whether there's any content about this topic at the target page, and I don't think the article should exist, because it's not notable, and I find "you need to revert the BLAR to AfD something" fundamentally kind of silly if the person doing the nomination would prefer the redirect to the article, though I will if this seems important to others in the discussion. Formatting fixed (I think), my bad. Rusalkii (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sources appear to be in Armenian, not Georgian. --Plantman (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; from what I can see on Google, mentions of this are very scant. --Plantman (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Mongolia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hrach Kaprielian

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

Non-notable businessman. Lacking any WP:RS. Cabrils (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Football, Armenia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - @Wcquidditch please consider withdrawing this nomination. I have added over a dozen new citations. He is a well known Armenian businessman and philanthropist. Mainly take a look at these: ankakh.com and westernarmeniatv.com (English documentary of the same is here). There are many more citations if you search his name in Armenian. I stopped looking as I have found enough. I have also greatly expanded the article and his bio.Mysecretgarden (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any withdrawal of this nomination will not be coming from me. I only performed deletion sorting here and am not the nominator — Cabrils (talk · contribs) is. I have no opinion on the nominated article or the new sources. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. @Cabrils seems to be the nominator. I will also message him. Mysecretgarden (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the pings. Mysecretgarden would you mind please providing WP:THREE-- it will be the fastest way to resolve this, thanks. Cabrils (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils The 2 I mentioned above are the best ones. The rest are not as in-depth and are about different news about him, but with everything combined there is enough to meet WP:BASIC. Mainly take a look at these: ankakh.com and westernarmeniatv.com (English documentary of the same is here) Mysecretgarden (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on refs in the article and my own search using Google’s Armenia news search page. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kargin Haghordum

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

A 20-year old Armenian TV show that fails WP:GNG, and currently has no references. The only mention I can find is an Armenian interview from 2010 with the two actors, otherwise no other coverage, significant or otherwise. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added 3 news refs (plus an interview. I used http://google.am to find them. (one of them is already in our Armenian language article, hy:Կարգին հաղորդում. I used Google Translate to read them. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCTKe3SwUHU&ab_channel=KarginTV

It is one of the most popular shows in the Armenian history. 5 million views for this episode (Keep in mind, Armenia's population is only 3 million). Widely considered by Armenians to be one of the best comedy shows of all time. Wrobeli (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and WP:AGF. I can't read a word of Armenian, but it looks popular and notable. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austria

Anton Paar

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

The article appears to not have any secondary sourcing, and the sources on the dewiki article, as well as on Google, are mostly routine announcements and press releases, in addition of use of the company's website. It would be helpful of more secondary sourcing be found, but I feel that this falls short of WP:NCORP. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Austria. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete there is coverage in reliable sources, such as scientific journals [9] and industry specific publications [10] [11] but not really a ton of it. Coverage in a scientific journal may indicate notability but it reads like a press release, furthermore it also seems they are sponsoring a prize [12] in the same journal and thus coverage may not be fully independent. --hroest 16:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Anton Paar is a relatively large instrument manufacturer (top 25 in 2016 [13]). I agree the article needs to be updated, but I expect that additional sources could be found. Some of its history is covered in more depth in industry magazines [14]. I would like to see more independent sources found for a stronger keep vote though. Searching in German/Austrian sources could be more fruitful. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found the history in the article useful as our company is purchasing a density instrument from AP as part of our own chemical instrument, and I needed to get some background information which I found here. 12.45.248.130 (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 100 yr old company, but hard to find sourcing. This museum details their history [15] and a news story here from the USA [16]. Austrian study about workers over age 50 at the company [17]. Book chapter about their expansion into China [18]. Should be enough for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FIS Freestyle Ski and Snowboarding World Championships 2027

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

Might just be WP:TOOSOON for an event two years out. More sourcing would have to be found to warrant a standalone article right now. JTtheOG (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Austria. JTtheOG (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the next of this tournament, it is not a yearly a tournament, and the article will be needed eventually Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any sustained coverage of this event yet, just an announcement about the host. Not enough to keep and there isn't enough in the article to draftify. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Azerbaijan

Siege of Jraberd

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

This was BLARed about a month ago by AirshipJungleman29 , however it is not mentioned in the target and thus makes a bad redirect. This is a sufficiently recent BLAR that I'm not going to try to send this to RfD but also don't want to restore it just to send it AfD: the pre-BLAR content to evaluate is at Special:Permalink/1281473075. I cannot find any reasonable sources on which to hang either an article or a mention of the subject at the target page, though I don't read Georgian. Rusalkii (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Georgia (country). Rusalkii (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what's going on here Rusalkii; a redirect is at AfD because it's too recent(?) to go to RfD and because you're not willing to revert the BLAR because you can't justify it being an article? Not sure of the logic. Also, you may want to fix all the broken formatting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects which get sent to RfD after a recent BLAR usually close as "send to AfD instead" and I figured I'd try to skip the middleman this time. I don't think the redirect should exist, because it's misleading about whether there's any content about this topic at the target page, and I don't think the article should exist, because it's not notable, and I find "you need to revert the BLAR to AfD something" fundamentally kind of silly if the person doing the nomination would prefer the redirect to the article, though I will if this seems important to others in the discussion. Formatting fixed (I think), my bad. Rusalkii (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sources appear to be in Armenian, not Georgian. --Plantman (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; from what I can see on Google, mentions of this are very scant. --Plantman (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Mongolia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nasimi (Baku Metro)

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

Seems unlikely that sources exist which show that every stop on this metro line are notable per WP:STATION. Other language WP pages are poorly referenced, at best they show the station exists in public timetables etc. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that this metro stop is notable as it is an example of post-Soviet architecture in Azerbaijan. Most metro stations in the former Soviet Union have unique architectural features, see stations of the Saint Petersburg Metro. You would not delete a station article for the New York City Subway or the Moscow Metro so why delete this one? Zbase4 (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baku Metro: ~~Delete~~ WP:NTRAINSTATION says "train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations." I believe this applies to metro stations as well. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote since I think a Redirect would be more useful. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep I found one source:

AZERTAC (2024-06-04). Laməkan şairin metrodakı məkanı. Retrieved 2025-05-17 – via YouTube.

In addition, the Azerbaijani Wiki has two additional sources but they are both dead links & I cannot revive on Archive.org. From the titles they suggest SIGCOV & searching their former domains they seemed to be news sources so I will WP:AGF of the original Wiki authors and assume they are SIGCOV RS. Jumpytoo Talk 01:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baku Metro. There is nothing for a stand alone article. Lacking in notability as a trainstation. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baku metro. Mccapra (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Baku metro. This article fails WP:GNG due to lack of sourcing. There isn't enough for a standalone article and according to WP:STATION train stations don't have inherent notability anyway.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khumar Gadimova

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

This article does not yet appear to be notable for English Wikipedia Insufficient Sources, and the topic may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Lists of people, Music, and Popular culture. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khumar Gadimova is a well-known figure in Azerbaijani pop music and is widely recognized by the public in the country. Her artistic career has been covered by numerous reliable and independent sources such as APA, AzərTAc, Musavat, and Report. She has been active in the music industry since the 1990s, performing solo concerts, with her songs broadcast on national television and radio, and has participated in several state-level events.

The article is based on verifiable and independent sources, and the subject clearly meets the notability criteria due to her impact on Azerbaijani culture and public recognition. For these reasons, I oppose the deletion of the article and recommend that it be kept.Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being selected as an 'Honored artist' by the Azerbaijan government should be enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. I found sources stating this, but all are in Azerbaijani and I'm not sure if they're reliable enough.[19] [20] — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://president.az/az/articles/view/22993 The official website of the President of the country has reported on this. Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw it. But independent, reliable sources are needed, and that is a primary source, which is not great. Are there others? — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bakupost.az/xumar-qedimovaya-emekdar-artist-oldu https://mia.az/mobil/1075536 https://rublika.az/index.php?newsid=22845 https://etikxeber.az/xumar-q%C9%99dimova-%C9%99m%C9%99kdar-artist-oldu/ https://hit.az/az/senet/264643/emekdar-artist-konserte-hazirlasir/ https://musavat.com/ru/mobile/news/bacisi-xumar-qedimova-emekdar-artist-olmasindan-xebersizdir_420423.html https://www.gununsesi.info/xumar-q%C9%99dimovaya-%C9%99m%C9%99kdar-artist-adi-verildi/ https://baku.ws/show-business/xumar-qdimovaya-mkdar-artist-ad-verildi-srncam https://azxeber.com/az/emekdar-artist-turkiyede-trend-oldu/maqazin/ https://news24.az/180697-emekdar-artist-sevenlerine-seslendi.html Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are those independent, reliable sources? Linkbombing is not enough for a discussion. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://president.az/az/articles/view/22993 The most reliable source. The country's president's own official website Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Being selected as an 'Honored artist' by the Azerbaijani government, which is a national level recognition, is enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noting that the Azerbaijani spelling of her name is Xumar Qədimova (which I have added to the article). Searching on this spelling will probably bring up more sources in that language. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep above information and additional sources have been sufficient to determine notability as well as WP:ANYBIO#1 with a national honour and yes, WP:NEXISTS. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on the above comments and cited references in this article. It passes WP:ANYBIO. Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium

Global Student Forum

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

fails WP:NORG and entirely primary sourced promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. GoldRomean (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Schwarz

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST notability guidelines —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 04:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Belgium. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 04:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not indexed in the Getty Ulan [21], brief bio here [22]- although I can't pull up the bio itself due to only having access to the snippit view- I don't see notability with a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tried a search for French Belgian sources [23], still not much comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem to have been a notable painter. There is an entry in French Wikipedia for an artist named Pierre Schwartz (note different spelling of last name) born in the same year, 1950.[24]. But they are a French (not Belgian) sports photographer, not a Neo-expressionist painter. Different artist it seems. Other than that, all I have found is user-submitted content on pay-to-play art selling sites like ArtMajeur [25] (with the last name spelled Schwartz) - who also sounds like a different artist, and an entry Artspur (also a pay-to-play art selling site) [26] but that one has a birthdate of 1963, not 1950, so is probably a different person also. The only thing found with the last name spelled Schwarz not Schwartz is an announcement for a show (connected primary source doesn't count towards GNG) [27]. No luck so far in finding coverage, nor anything with the title, "Biographical illustrated dictionary of the artists in Belgique since 1830" online or on JSTOR. Fails WP:GNG and also WP:NARTIST notability criteria. Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable but hopefully inspired students and brought joy to people through his arts. Frwiki removed this article in 2011. Wikidata has him no longer alive since 2014. The article was created by a single purpose user in 2011. gidonb (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LIZY (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are either based on company announcements (fail WP:ORGIND) or funding and launch announcements (fail WP:ORGTRIV). ~ A412 ^talk! 22:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Belgium, France, and Netherlands. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this article that is not included in the references right now. Also this one. gidonb (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Bocklandt

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

The article lacks sustained, notable coverage of the subject via third-party sources. The majority of sources on this page are research papers partially authored by Bocklandt. The TIME article does not mention Bocklandt at all. The subject's work on the "gay gene" is detailed in the Biology and sexual orientation article. Various aspects of their work could be detailed in their respective subjects, but Bocklandt himself doesn't appear to be notable. 30Four (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Science. 30Four (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belgium and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over 30 references (out of 46) were added to the article, where the subject did not partially author the source. Several links to interviews in magazines, newspapers, radio and TV were included, where the subject's work was the main topic of discussion, which implies notability. Eurenansantos (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:REFBOMB was not the way to go about this, considering 17 of the total references are only used to state that Bocklandt has appeared in media. The sources are not used to support any other claim on the page. The articles that speak to Bocklandt's research would be great applied to the Wikipedia articles about the subject rather than Bocklandt himself, especially considering he typically worked within a team of researchers. There are multiple 45+ minute long pieces of media with no timestamp, multiple primary sources linking to companies that Bocklandt is affiliated with, and some paywalled links that I do not have access to. There are also many blogs linked within here as well.

It still appears that a majority of the press here mentions Bocklandt in passing, where the focus is on the research itself. A Dutch editor may be able to speak to the availability of higher quality sources (unrelated to interviews) in that language, but from what I can see, the reliable sources in English on this page only mention Bocklandt in passing in relation to his work - particularly about the Sexual orientation studies - (The Boston Globe, The Guardian), or not at all (Time, The Conversation).

Also, if you intend to vote "keep" for this article, please format your comment appropriately. If this was meant purely as a comment to persuade others, disregard that sentence. 30Four (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asphales

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

Fails to establish notability under WP:GNG; lacks substantial independent, reliable secondary sources covering the subject beyond minimal, trivial mentions AndesExplorer (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Belgium. AndesExplorer (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Wikipedia Library includes access to De Standaard, a major Belgian newspaper. A quick search turns up 16 hits for articles containing "Asphales" and 15 hits for "Fortales" (Asphales' current name).--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One World Radio

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

Advertorialized article about a radio station, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media outlets. As always, radio stations are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but apart from one citation to a music blog that isn't a reliable source (and wouldn't be enough to get this over GNG all by itself even if we did handwave it through), this is otherwise referenced entirely to the station's own self-published content about itself, which is not support for notability at all.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the station from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Belgium, and Romania. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Tomorrowland Take away the PR material and you do not have anything that comes close to an article. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, when suggesting a Redirect or Merge, please provide a direct link to the target article you are recommending. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Heylen

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Belgium. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Dutch article at https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Heylen has additional references that could be added here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The sources in nl.wiki shows enough notability. Svartner (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added some references from the article in the Dutch Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established. He is a coach, but not sure why that makes him notable. Others have coached the same teams but that would not be enough for a stand alone page like this. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you make lots of arguments not based in policy. This time, it's "Others have coached the same teams". Why and how is that relevant? Please comment more on the sourcing, which makes or breaks an article. Geschichte (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG, Google search does not show enough source and coverage to establish notability Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Bulgaria

Bulgarians in Bulgaria

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

This article is useless, its scope sets it in the future to remain as a dump of census and statistic data. This article cannot cover more interesting and academically covered aspects such as Bulgarians having grown in number relative to other ethnic groups in the country for X or Y reasons because that's the scope of Bulgarisation. There is also overlap with Demographics of Bulgaria. There's simply nothing to write or read here. It is also an article without equivalents in Wikipedia (e.g. Serbs in Serbia). Super Ψ Dro 13:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Super Ψ Dro 13:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Surprised that an article like this has even existed for several years. There is nothing that can be salvaged here, since it is duplicate material anyway. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bulgarians#Demographics: Redirect to Demographics of Bulgaria could also work. No need for this article by itself. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Croatia

Kyle Hill

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

I came across this article whilst looking for the YouTube educator. (who apparently doesn't have an article at this time) Asides from a few external links, there appears to be only one source for this biographical article about a basketball player. I suggest draftification unless users performing WP:BEFORE searches can find sufficient sources to expand and rescue this article. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. When I hastily made my nomination, I assumed the article would be held to the same (or similarly high) notability standards as biographical articles for YouTubers like J. J. McCullough, Mr. Beat and Sambucha, and other sportspeople like Armand Biniakounou and Patrick Chiwala. (I don't really care as much about these two, just thought I'd mention them as examples) Nonetheless, I take away the following from this:

Articles on sportspeople are held to some standards, but apparently those standards may not be as high as the standards for articles about influencers. (I might have run with a fallacy here)
If I had wanted to bring other editors' attention to an article, I could've just tagged it as needing "immediate attention", but that can only be done through certain WikiProject banners. In my experience, tagging an article for "immediate attention" on its talk page ironically seems less effective (than an AfD nomination) at drawing a reasonable amount of attention to an article within a reasonable amount of time.

Nonetheless, as an inclusionist, I'd be satisfied to see the article kept. Feel free to close this discussion as speedy keep at any time. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What an incredibly passive-aggressive withdrawal. Rikster2 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Furthermore, there's a delete !vote, so it's not able to be withdrawn anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a solitary reliable source in a biography of a living person, over the course of 17.8 years, does not an article make, nor begin to meet muster for Wikipedia:Notability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick glance at the sources cited in an article, does not a WP:BEFORE search make... or something something. JTtheOG (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Serbia, Spain, Georgia (U.S. state), and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an incredibly lazy nomination that relies on others to do the work on behalf of the nominator. As Hill was a prominent enough basketball player in Europe, I was able to farm [28] [29] from other languages, [30] is a good article and [31] [32] are other sources. Not all of these are SIGCOV but coverage is easily found, and we don't draftify source-deficient articles if the subject is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 01:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another source. [33] Passes WP:NBASKETBALL. Anyone who is selected in an NBA draft is going to have coverage. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like the nominator saw themselves as the person addressed by the text of WP:BEFORE, but that is how we conventionally mean it - you are supposed to do some due diligence before nominating, as opposed to nominating and expecting others to do it. We're all volunteers, and it's fair to expect some investment of time up front given that you expect others to do some investment of time to then double-check that and back you up. Likewise, a lack of {{inline citations}} (and references being merely links) is a cleanup issue, not a reason for deletion. More fundamentally, if the main thing you wanted is an article about the youtuber, just write one at a disambiguated title, like Kyle Hill (YouTuber). --Joy (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by WikiOriginal-9. Rikster2 (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:NBASKETBALL #1, per the sources provided above by SportingFlyer and WikiOriginal-9. The article could use some improvement, but deletion is not cleanup. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBASKETBALL (apparently something meaningful still there).—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Silly nom apparently done in bad faith. I've added SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Kenneth Naylor (via WP:PROD on 18 May 2025)

Czech Republic

Jan Šebek

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

Non-notable former talent who did not succeed in adult football. Only three caps in professional football. FromCzech (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia also lacks significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agrarian Democratic Party

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

No evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. Political party which seems to never have returned any candidates. C 679 06:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C 679 06:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't appears to meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Fade258 (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fade258. Jdcooper (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:GNG. Hasn't run for any office. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STOP removing political parties! Party ran for election in 2019 European Parliament election. ThecentreCZ (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thermacut

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

This company does not appear to meet WP:ORG. Sources present do not provide more than a passing mention of the company name or website, or are press releases from the company itself. Results from Google Books seem to be limited to the website address or notes that the company's involvement in various trade fairs. C 679 03:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic. C 679 03:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, promotional/vanity cruft. Jdcooper (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT - only sources (outside of thermacut.com) are Torch Tech articles on Metalworking News, which is affiliated, or CORPTRIV (acquisitions). "Thermacut bur" is an unrelated technology. Current sources do not establish notability; see source table.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Bloomberg			One sentence; trivial	✘ No
The Fabricator	Press release		Trivial coverage of one technology	✘ No
JoeWelder		Personal blog	About a single product, not the company	✘ No
Thomasnet	Advertisement			✘ No
HelloTrade	Profile by Thermacut			✘ 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}}.

Anerdw (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the excellent analysis by Anerdw. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Stejskal (artist)

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

This article survived an AfD in 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stejskal) but doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG in that discussion. There are some results in Google books, but appear to be namesakes from the 19th century and other periods outside of this one's lifespan. C 679 17:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Czech Republic, and Australia. C 679 17:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the basis that he is held by National Library of Australia and Moravian Gallery, both important and discerning public institutions. I've added a few sources for that. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the references, I don't see either of those covering Stejskal in detail. Excerpts: NL: "and a collection of theatre posters designed by Josef Stejskal (through the Esso Project)" SL (caption only): "above: Josef Stejskal, State Library staff member and designer of theatre posters" Additionally, they are not "independent of the subject". C 679 06:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, and certainly coverage is in passing. However, I do note that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals 4 b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition and (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Also I don't see why the National Library report would be other than "independent of the subject" since he had no association with him when they collected his works. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to update: have also added info about artist holdings in National Gallery and State Library of NSW. Some acquired by public collections, some donated by third parties, some donations of artist. To me it establishes there's notability in relevant Aus art, library, theatre circles, but I acknowledge that sources remain thin. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the recently added sources help him pass WP:GNG. I haven't found any meaningful source, just databases. FromCzech (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like he's also held by the Library of Congress[34], but these are archival collections rather than art collections, so the inclusion is less useful for notability. Also, I'm not sure where we'd source any additional yet basic biographical information. Jahaza (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZF Openmatics

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

Company which only seems to have received trivial coverage, failing WP:ORG. Some references are written like press releases. Article mainly created and maintained by two WP:SPA editors (2013, 2022).C 679 07:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic. C 679 07:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Btw the company is currently in liquidation. FromCzech (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ZF Friedrichshafen (WP:ATD). 82.117.28.137 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party of Greens

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

No evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. C 679 14:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C 679 14:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Existing political party nominated for deletion? What is this? --ThecentreCZ (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This party had representation in the Czech Parliament, albeit briefly. Of course it's notable, and there are a number of secondary sources on the Czech article. It just needs expansion/translation. Jdcooper (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - the Czech article at cs:Demokratická strana zelených – Za práva zvířat cites 16 references. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you see this as a snow keep considering the number of references is no indication of notability, plus the fact that this party has never returned any candidates at an election? C 679 07:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that someone is considering indication of notability? We keeping all parties. This is not living persons. How do you for example see this article Ondřej Štursa as notable with two links? ThecentreCZ (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political parties are subject to WP:ORG. There is no Wikipedia policy to have a page on every political party. C 679 11:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "every political party", but it had representation in the Czech parliament. And the Czech article about the same topic has plenty of sources which can be used to expand this one. Jdcooper (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The supposed representation in Parliament came from "two Green MPs, Olga Zubová and Věra Jakubková". In Norway at least, it is impossible to formally switch parties during a term, so if you leave your party, you become independent. If this is the case in CZ as well, then the party was not formally represented in Parliament. Geschichte (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not the case in CZ. These two MPs were sitting for this party. Jdcooper (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for the clarification! Geschichte (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, two members of parliament sat for this party while having a mandate and there seem to be an okay amount of sources. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Denmark

Kirsten Jepsen

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

Contested draftification, so here we are. (Why not just let it stay in draft space?) It was draftified as only relying on database sources, and was readded with no valid sources. The only sources are a database and two instances of her name appearing in lists. These are nowhere near significant coverage, cf. WP:SPORTCRIT: "All sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources". I could find no other Danish sources in a WP:BEFORE (a language I can read and speak). I'm by no means opposed to it being draftified again, but it then has to go through the AFC process, I think. Geschichte (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since the draft submission process was not respected. Svartner (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I translated this article from Spanish before it was unilaterally moved to draftspace. I added more references and moved it back. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Danish language sources. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They too just mention her name among many Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is because the medals were won in team events. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the policy excerpt above. They need individual coverage about their person. Geschichte (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy does not specifically cover rowing making it somewhat confusing. Compared to other pages in Category:Danish female rowers this article is better sourced so what is the standard? Moondragon21 (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy covers any and all sports. Regardless of sport, people need individual coverage about their person to have an article. Without that, it's not well sourced - in fact, having one reference with individual coverage about their person is the minimum standard. Geschichte (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only translated the article believing that a medal winning world champion in rowing was notable. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done, and as I said in the nomination, I am willing to move it back into draft space. Such a medalist "should" be notable, but then again, it's not our job to decide that, but rather the abundance of in-depth sources... Geschichte (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. Would AFC be preferred to using Wikipedia:CXT? Moondragon21 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support a move to draftspace. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2003 World Rowing Championships. Not enough coverage for stand alone page. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: commenters seem split between redirecting as an ATD and deleting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough significant coverage. Angryapathy (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To generate a clearer consensus on delete or redirect with relevant policies cited.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added Danish-language sources which I believe covers Wikipedia:SPORTCRIT. Moondragon21 (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't and it warrants a WP:TROUT at this point. Geschichte (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there actually are sources that provide significant coverage, it would be helpful to see discussion of which ones they are
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article lacks WP:SIGCOV, and it's nowhere near to meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Proposed deletions

Estonia

Others

Finland

Tolani Ibikunle

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

Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current references are all primary to the clubs and leagues the subject has played for, and while [[35]] has some quotes from the subject the article is more about MLS referees having a racial bias than him. Let'srun (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Finland, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angeline Kavindu Musili

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

Generally along the lines of WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret M. Otteskov - consensus appears to be that ambassadors are not inherently notable. As for WP:GNG - Most of the sourcing is either non-independent or just mentions subject (i.e. does not cover her in any depth). There are 3 sources that don't appear to mention her at all. I have decent access to Scandinavian papers and speak Swedish so I also looked for any possible WP:SIGCOV there and was not able to find anything besides one mention. The Kenyan award she received, Burning Spear, does not appear to be exceptionally prestigious (she received the third class variety of the second tier order overall, alongside almost 200 ppl) so I'm doubtful if it could confer inherent notability on its own. Zzz plant (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment The consensus has agreed, I understand, that ambassadors are not inherently notable. This is despite Wikidata's consensus that Ambassador is not someone's job, but it is an award. Noting that other people are being mentioned in the rationale above. I note that we have over 100,000 people on Wikipedia who are notable because they were chosen by a town somewhere to kick a ball on their behalf. If they go on to represent their country then they become extra notable...(alongside well over 20,000 others - not 200) as long as they keep kicking a ball then they may be made ambassadors for the UN, leading charities or companies. I feel that the basis of this argument is that "ambassadors are not notable" - which is an idea that has never been proposed or agreed. This person has two national awards - the burning spear and being recognised as a representative of her country by her country and several others. You may not think that the American ambassador to Malawi is not notable - but it makes no sense to ignore the award and recognition that was given to that person when they were appointed. Ambassadors in Malawi are not only appointed by the President but they are grilled by a parliamentary committee to check that they are a notable candidate for the award of this position. Victuallers (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - maybe there's been a misunderstanding, my argument wasn't that "ambassadors are not notable", it was that - based on my current understanding - they don't have presumed or inherent notability, which is why I searched for SIGCOV, attempted to evaluate the burning spear award. and looked into the possibility of a national biography entry. Zzz plant (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I live in the U.S. so my access to information about African diplomats to European countries may be limited compared to, say, people who live geographically closer. Ergo, it interests me greatly to read a Wikipedia biography about an ambassador from Kenya to Finland, Latvia, etc. Notwithstanding the remarks made about quantity and quality of sources found, IMHO, it would be a pity to delete the article and lose the historical facts regarding diplomacy. (I came here because of the deletion notice at Women, but my comment stands regardless of the subject's gender.) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point was that at one point being an ambassador was considered notable, now (I'm told) its not. So it was notable, and its not now. Are we now to discount an ambassadorship completely? That would appear to take a binary approach to a notability decision that this very process shows is loaded with opinion. Surely we should not be looking not for a new argument, but a small piece of evidence to add to the substantial piece of evidence of a national award (ie being made an ambassador). It seems to me that evidence that was once thought to be totally persuasive is now being discounted completely (mistakenly IMO) as no longer relevant. There are several independent sources that record that she has the award of being an ambassador. It is being argued below that "it is not because of the sources in the article." But, there are still several independent sources if we consider ones that support the award of ambassadorship and the other national award. Victuallers (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for sources about her you can check the government website + plus the sources in the article that should be enough for notability FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - the link is published by the Embassy of the Republic of Kenya in Stockholm; that's the organization she represents ( bio is under 'about us'), so it is not an independent source. Zzz plant (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citing WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Unless you think the Republic of Kenya in Stockholm is not reputable.

The other thing, primary source can be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. Which this website does. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with this discussion. You can't use primary sources to show notability. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she is notable, it is not because of the sources in the article - she was one of many award recipients and a BEFORE search brings up little beyond the fact she's an ambassador. It's possible I'm missing something but it doesn't look like there's SIGCOV of her specifically here. SportingFlyer T·C 06:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: First, for those unfamiliar with AFD, please do not only present an argument but your outcome preference in BOLD, your choices are Keep, Delete, Draftify, Redirect or Merge. It really helps a closer as does indicating what policy or guideline supports your argument so it is not just based in your opinion. This usually involves an evaluation of sources in the article or ones you have located. As for ambassadors, I know we delete a lot of their articles, mostly through PRODs but also through the AFD process. Most of the time, the discussions do not get this level of attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Finno-Ugric substrate

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

This is a bit of a difficult one. This page covers perhaps four separate topics - the Paleo-Laplandic Saami substrate (which to a lesser extent also occurs in Finnic), the substrate in the Finno-Permic languages (which here is misleadingly described as the Finno-Volgaic substrate even though it also occurs in Permic), the issue of toponyms in Finland, and the substrate in the Nganasan language. Combining these substrates into a single topic of "Pre-Finno-Ugric substrate" is not notable, but the topics individually may have some notability. The Paleo-Laplandic languages topic already has its own article, and the information about the Finno-Permic substrate should probably go to the article about Finno-Permic languages. Toponyms in Finland could maybe get its own article, and the discussion about the Nganasan language can just go to the language's article. Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Finland. Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the term is definitely used at least in Russian-language publications (i.e. Eugene Helimski used it as an umbrella term for 5 separate but related topics) and it's no less legitimate than, say, "Pre-Indo-European languages" or "Pre-Greek substrate". By the way, what I've read on the substrate in Finno-Volgaic languages (Zhivlov & Aikio) make only very few mentions of similar substrate word in Permic. Finstergeist (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this paper Aikio gives several examples that have Permic cognates, see pages 45-46, and he specifically mentions this:

"a surprisingly large part of the vocabulary traditionally reconstructed for

‘Finno-Volgaic’ and ‘Finno-Permic’ (UEW: 605–827) involves irregular sound cor-

respondences and other etymological difficulties."

I.e. Finno-Permic is specifically mentioned (also Finno-Volgaic, but that is a subset of Finno-Permic, and the vocabulary there has the same features such as abundance of š).

Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's well-sourced in the literature. Bearian (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep umbrella groups often have their own articles, see for example Pre-Indo-European languages. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep, above Easternsahara (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

France

Florence Débarre

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:NPROF. While she is quoted in a BBC article, the mention is brief and does not constitute significant coverage per WP:N. The NZZ article offers more sigificant coverage, but still falls short of the in-depth, sustained coverage required to establish independent notability. The bronze medal from CNRS hardly makes her notable either. BoldPlatypus (talk) 06:01, 28 May 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 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nomination. She may become notable, but she's not there yet. The list of selected publications has just one entry, a paper in which she's just one of 23 authors! Not very impressive. Being a director of research at the CNRS is not wildly impressive either (I was one myself before I retired): there are lots of other directors of research. Athel cb (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She is the senior author on the Cell paper, so she led the team of 23 authors. DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep via WP:NPROF #1 given her role in downloading and analyzing the Wuhan Covid data while it was still online and the coverage it's received in multiple independent reliable sources. The Guardian actually has significant coverage of her (unusual for an academic) [36]. She also has a respectable publication record with seven first author papers with 50 or more citations. Not sure if the CNRS Bronze Medal is enough for #2. Nnev66 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt yet pass WP:NPROF#1 since it is probably WP:TOOSOON. Her h-index of 25 (22 on Scopus) is on the low side in a high citation field. Similarly, I dont see a pass of WP:GNG as the Guardian article isnt really in depth about her but about her research and a lot of it is quotes and thus likely primary source. --hroest 00:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the h-index is not a great way to evaluate NPROF #1. One can be a middle author, one of many, and still have a high h-index. A better gauge is if the academic has first author and/or corresponding author status (often last author position). The question is whether this subject's body of work to date meets the threshold of having a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, which is what I'm arguing here based on the coverage it's received as well as the number of citations - I think more time elapsing will make things clearer. Has the subject crossed this threshold yet?... Nnev66 (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general I agree that the h index doesnt capture the full component of NPROF#1 but it can be an indicator. I looked at her publications as well, she has a single publication with 100+ citations as a last author and one such highly cited publication as a first author. Again this is in a relatively high citation field of genetics. In general that is what can be expected of an "average professor" at a Western research institution at her career stage, so this is another indication that she doesnt pass the "average professor" test. She is doing well in her career, but about as well as one would expect an average professor to do. I do agree that there could be an argument that she passes GNG due to her media presence but most articles do not have SIGCOV of herself as subject but cover the subject of the origin of COVID which is indeed a notable subject for an article. However it is unclear if she passes GNG, I would argue not since I dont see WP:THREE high quality sources but it is fair to argue otherwise. --hroest 02:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep- H-index level over 25 and over 2000 academic citations are good. Passes WP:NACADEMIC.Goodboyjj (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is a credible argument that she meets WP:NPROF criteria #7 ('substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity'). She has been widely cited in the news over the last several years for her work examining sources of the COVID-19 virus. Her work has been discussed in major media outlets, in multiple countries. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for certain her publication record is low for her field if you look at others in her area of expertise according to GS. It appears that there has been some misreading of #C1 in some of the comments above; an h-factor of ~20 is assistant-associate professor level, well below the standard in WP:NPROF. 2000 citations is a good start, but also low for notability; 8-10K is more the standard for her moderately high-citation field. While she does have a bit more coverage, I do not feel it goes far enough or is WP:SUSTAINED. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Hill

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

I came across this article whilst looking for the YouTube educator. (who apparently doesn't have an article at this time) Asides from a few external links, there appears to be only one source for this biographical article about a basketball player. I suggest draftification unless users performing WP:BEFORE searches can find sufficient sources to expand and rescue this article. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. When I hastily made my nomination, I assumed the article would be held to the same (or similarly high) notability standards as biographical articles for YouTubers like J. J. McCullough, Mr. Beat and Sambucha, and other sportspeople like Armand Biniakounou and Patrick Chiwala. (I don't really care as much about these two, just thought I'd mention them as examples) Nonetheless, I take away the following from this:

Articles on sportspeople are held to some standards, but apparently those standards may not be as high as the standards for articles about influencers. (I might have run with a fallacy here)
If I had wanted to bring other editors' attention to an article, I could've just tagged it as needing "immediate attention", but that can only be done through certain WikiProject banners. In my experience, tagging an article for "immediate attention" on its talk page ironically seems less effective (than an AfD nomination) at drawing a reasonable amount of attention to an article within a reasonable amount of time.

Nonetheless, as an inclusionist, I'd be satisfied to see the article kept. Feel free to close this discussion as speedy keep at any time. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What an incredibly passive-aggressive withdrawal. Rikster2 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Furthermore, there's a delete !vote, so it's not able to be withdrawn anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a solitary reliable source in a biography of a living person, over the course of 17.8 years, does not an article make, nor begin to meet muster for Wikipedia:Notability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick glance at the sources cited in an article, does not a WP:BEFORE search make... or something something. JTtheOG (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Serbia, Spain, Georgia (U.S. state), and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an incredibly lazy nomination that relies on others to do the work on behalf of the nominator. As Hill was a prominent enough basketball player in Europe, I was able to farm [37] [38] from other languages, [39] is a good article and [40] [41] are other sources. Not all of these are SIGCOV but coverage is easily found, and we don't draftify source-deficient articles if the subject is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 01:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another source. [42] Passes WP:NBASKETBALL. Anyone who is selected in an NBA draft is going to have coverage. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like the nominator saw themselves as the person addressed by the text of WP:BEFORE, but that is how we conventionally mean it - you are supposed to do some due diligence before nominating, as opposed to nominating and expecting others to do it. We're all volunteers, and it's fair to expect some investment of time up front given that you expect others to do some investment of time to then double-check that and back you up. Likewise, a lack of {{inline citations}} (and references being merely links) is a cleanup issue, not a reason for deletion. More fundamentally, if the main thing you wanted is an article about the youtuber, just write one at a disambiguated title, like Kyle Hill (YouTuber). --Joy (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by WikiOriginal-9. Rikster2 (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:NBASKETBALL #1, per the sources provided above by SportingFlyer and WikiOriginal-9. The article could use some improvement, but deletion is not cleanup. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBASKETBALL (apparently something meaningful still there).—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Silly nom apparently done in bad faith. I've added SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stade François Monti

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

Non notable local stadium with a capacity of 1,000. Mccapra (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and France. Mccapra (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ÉF Bastia – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I should have thought of that. Mccapra (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 09:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ÉF Bastia as a viable alternative to deletion. Netherzone (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Dutrait

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

Unsourced BLP. No reliable sources online other than his profiles on various board game websites. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Games, and France. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, for lack of a better target, to List of role-playing game artists. The Board Game Designer's Guide to Careers in the Industry has two-thirds of a page on Dutrait in the part I could preview, and some more in sections I can't. I've also added coverage and an award based on web articles which to my understanding are by independent game-related web magazines rather than simply "board game websites". Neither of those coverages is very long, though, so notability is just on the edge in my view. Additional, there are short comments within further reviews. Much of what is unsourced can be verified by Dutrait's non-independent portait here, the independent portrait here, and primary sources. Daranios (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is also brief general commentary on Dutrait in this unlikely secondary source. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This will be able to be kept in case of providing more credit sources.110 and 135 (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for various credits of Dutrait can be found in various primary and secondary sources appearing in this, this, and to a lesser degree this search. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources found by Daranios. BOZ (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LIZY (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are either based on company announcements (fail WP:ORGIND) or funding and launch announcements (fail WP:ORGTRIV). ~ A412 ^talk! 22:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Belgium, France, and Netherlands. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this article that is not included in the references right now. Also this one. gidonb (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geneviève Jeanningros

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

Fails WP:GNG. She briefly went viral during Pope Francis's funeral, but other than that... she's just a nun. Luxic (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Religion, Christianity, Europe, and France. Luxic (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previous independent in depth coverage here[43], here[44] and here[45]. Pope Francis mentioned her in print[46][47] and she's been mentioned in books about Francis[48][49]. Additional coverage here[50]. Jahaza (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it's worth noting that all those sources only mention her in relation to Pope Francis (or she's mentioned by Francis himself). I still fail to see what would make her notable in her own right, regardless of her connection/friendship with the late pope. Luxic (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough coverage in RS. Not only in books but in The New York Times, The Telegraph, The Washington Post, Agence France-Presse. I added a Reuters and a People.com reference. The article has room for improvement, but notability is proven. It's not just 1E in the pope's funeral. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her ministry with the circus community and her public attention from working with the trans community already cited here have made her notable to the wider public.(talk) (talk)

Others

Georgia

Siege of Jraberd

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

This was BLARed about a month ago by AirshipJungleman29 , however it is not mentioned in the target and thus makes a bad redirect. This is a sufficiently recent BLAR that I'm not going to try to send this to RfD but also don't want to restore it just to send it AfD: the pre-BLAR content to evaluate is at Special:Permalink/1281473075. I cannot find any reasonable sources on which to hang either an article or a mention of the subject at the target page, though I don't read Georgian. Rusalkii (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Georgia (country). Rusalkii (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what's going on here Rusalkii; a redirect is at AfD because it's too recent(?) to go to RfD and because you're not willing to revert the BLAR because you can't justify it being an article? Not sure of the logic. Also, you may want to fix all the broken formatting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects which get sent to RfD after a recent BLAR usually close as "send to AfD instead" and I figured I'd try to skip the middleman this time. I don't think the redirect should exist, because it's misleading about whether there's any content about this topic at the target page, and I don't think the article should exist, because it's not notable, and I find "you need to revert the BLAR to AfD something" fundamentally kind of silly if the person doing the nomination would prefer the redirect to the article, though I will if this seems important to others in the discussion. Formatting fixed (I think), my bad. Rusalkii (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sources appear to be in Armenian, not Georgian. --Plantman (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; from what I can see on Google, mentions of this are very scant. --Plantman (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Mongolia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

Germany

Yusuf Barak

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

Afghan player who only acted for regional teams in Germany. No WP:SIGCOV found. Svartner (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, Germany, and Afghanistan. Svartner (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Fonseca

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

Non-notable photographer. Page was created by a single-purpose account with a clear COI (and who claims to be the subject himself). A WP:BEFORE search doesn't provide much information, and there isn't any evidence of notability from reliable sources. Fails WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Germany. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, fails WP:NBIO. Beautiful animals tho. Polygnotus (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the subject is "non-notable."

As a wildlife photographer, I have received significant **international recognition**, including:

Winner of the People’s Choice Award at the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition, hosted by the Natural History Museum — one of the world’s most prestigious institutions in the field of natural history and photography.
Featured and interviewed by numerous independent, reliable international media outlets, including the BBC, CNN, Forbes, National Geographic, The Guardian, Smithsonian Magazine, and others.
Just days ago, my work was profiled in a full-length feature by the Süddeutsche Zeitung^[1] — a leading German newspaper and an established reliable source under WP:RS.
My images are actively used by the WWF, the Snow Leopard Trust, and the Amur Tiger Center for conservation, education, and fundraising purposes.

While I acknowledge that the article was created with a conflict of interest, I have fully disclosed my identity on my user page and within this discussion. I have taken care to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and verifiability, and have cited only independent, third-party sources.

Based on the coverage and recognition outlined above, the subject clearly meets the criteria under WP:CREATIVE and WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, and I believe the article serves encyclopedic value and public interest. SaFo wiki (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ – — Duplicate !vote: SaFo wiki (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Sascha Fonseca meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria as a widely published and internationally recognized wildlife :photographer, particularly known for pioneering DSLR and mirrorless camera trap photography of elusive big cats such :as snow leopards, Amur leopards, and Siberian tigers.

1. Significant Independent Media Coverage:

Fonseca’s work has been featured in reputable, independent outlets including:

• Condé Nast, BBC, NatGeo, WWF

• Leading newspapers Telegraph, The Guardian, Süddeutsche Zeitung

This coverage demonstrates clear notability under WP:BIO and WP:GNG standards.

2. Prestigious Awards and Exhibitions:

• Winner in the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition by the Natural History Museum in London – one of :the most competitive and globally recognized photography contests.

• His now-iconic image of a wild snow leopard at sunset was shared by major conservation groups and widely :praised.

• Exhibitions include the UN Headquarters in New York, the Xposure International Photography Festival (UAE), and :global wildlife platforms.

3. Conservation Impact and Public Engagement:

Fonseca’s work raises awareness about endangered species and supports conservation through visuals rarely captured in the wild. His photos are used in research and education, and he regularly gives talks and participates in outreach.

4. Reliable Sources Exist and Can Be Added:

There is ample coverage available from independent third-party sources. If the article lacks inline citations, it can and should be improved—not deleted.

5. COI / Tone Issues Are Fixable:

If concerns exist around neutrality or conflict of interest, the appropriate step is to improve tone and structure—not removal. Wikipedia welcomes editing improvements and collaboration rather than erasure of notable subjects.

Conclusion:

Fonseca clearly meets the inclusion criteria. Deletion would remove a notable figure in modern wildlife photography from Wikipedia and disregard available documentation of his accomplishments. I strongly recommend keeping and improving the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaFo wiki (talk • contribs) 10:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC) — SaFo wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: SaFo wiki (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

his accomplishments So now you are not Fonseca?

But on your userpage you claimed to be him. I am Sascha Fonseca

Also, are your responses written using AI / a large language model? If a newspaper used one of your photos that is not coverage of you. Polygnotus (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am Sascha Fonseca. SaFo wiki (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: Yes, I confirm that I am Sascha Fonseca, and all my edits and replies have been written by me personally — not using AI or automated tools. The references cited in the article are not just for my photos, but for published interviews, tutorials and features where my work and career are covered independently by reliable sources. SaFo wiki (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I'm the AfC reviewer -- accepted it because of https://worldart.news/2023/03/07/breaking-down-elements-behind-sascha-fonsecas-award-winning-wildlife-photo-world-of-the-snow-leopard/ and https://mymodernmet.com/sascha-fonseca-siberian-tiger-camera-trap/, which in combination with https://www.cntraveller.in/story/what-does-it-take-to-photograph-a-snow-leopard-ladakh/ seem to make 3 detailed articles about the process. Although I don't like the COI. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also apparently https://www.sueddeutsche.de/projekte/artikel/gesellschaft/schneeleopard-fotograf-e865408/?reduced=true per above. WP:GNG seems to be met, even if the article is very promotional and needs to be worked over -- the only issue is sustained coverage, but the articles above were written in 2022, 2023, and 2025. So it does seem sustained over a couple years at least. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris: Labelling someone a “non-notable photographer” without fairly evaluating the sources is not only dismissive, but also contrary to Wikipedia’s spirit of neutrality and evidence-based discussion. The article includes coverage from multiple independent, reliable publications — including a full-length profile in Süddeutsche Zeitung (one of Germany’s leading newspapers), and features in Condé Nast Traveller, Smithsonian Magazine, and Nature TTL.

I was awarded the People’s Choice Award at the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition hosted by the Natural History Museum, selected from 39,000 images, with over 60,000 public votes. That alone is widely covered and meets notability per WP:PHOTOGRAPHER and WP:CREATIVE.

Yes, I created the article and have declared my COI transparently. But dismissing a subject solely on that basis while ignoring strong sources and international recognition contradicts the principles of WP:NPOV and WP:AGF.

I welcome constructive feedback — but not characterizations that ignore facts or contributions made in good faith. 91.73.1.255 (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.sueddeutsche.de/projekte/artikel/gesellschaft/schneeleopard-fotograf-e865408/

Specifically in regards to WP:PHOTOGRAPHER Foncesca would meet the criteria "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," with regards to the snow leopard photo, which all of these articles are about I think. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not convinced that this article meets WP:PHOTOGRAPHER or even WP:GNG. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, because the only reliable source I'm seeing with significant coverage is Conde Nast. I also have a problem with the COI. I think the subject can wait until more sources become available.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm just starting to look into the sources and I've already found two that are advertorials, not articles providing significant coverage. These are Native Advertising, in other words, WP:ADMASQ advertisements mascarading as news/journalism sources. World Art News is a promotional service platform that anyone can submit their work to for publication, at a fee; its pay to play, proven by their "About" description, Engage with this diverse audience through our promotional services. and Advertise with World Art News: Publish your Art, Press Release, Story and News and Additionally, we serve as a publisher, offering advertising, press releases, and other promotional services tailored to the affluent art community. all of which then link to the page that says for $99 Getting Started is Easy! My Modern Met is also an advertising platform mascarading as an art magazine or trade journal. Are you an artist, designer or photographer who'd like to have your work featured on My Modern Met? Did you see something interesting or inspiring that you think others might enjoy? Do you want to share it with the rest of the world? Great! Here's how: It's promotional click-bait, not serious art historical/art critical journalism. I am holding off !voting for now until I can take a deeper dive into the sources, but this is looking alot like WP:PROMO, and the COI is problematic. So far it seems like the subject is simply doing his job as a ~~commercial~~ photographer, like thousands of others. Netherzone (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not a commercial photographer — this is my personal passion and not my profession. I pursue wildlife photography independently, not for advertising or profit, and do not promote or sell products or services.

I understand concerns about source reliability, and I agree that not all media outlets carry the same editorial weight. I’ve been working to improve the article by adding coverage from more established publications (e.g. Süddeutsche Zeitung, Nature TTL) and am open to feedback on further strengthening it with reliable, independent sources. 91.73.1.255 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
91.73.1.255, please log in if you are @SaFo wiki Sascha Fonseca. Thanks for clarification. Unfortunately I'm unable to read the Süddeutsche Zeitung without paying for a subscription. Perhaps there is another link? The Nature TTL citation is a tutorial you wrote yourself, so therefore not an independent source. Nature TTL seems to be something different than the British scientific journal Nature. The Forbes piece seems to be based off a press release. A question for you, if you are Sascha, are any of your photographs held in the permanent collections of notable museums or national galleries? If so could you please add links here that would verify that? It might help establishing notability per WP:NARTIST. BTW, I'm sorry if it feels like there is a lot of scrutiny going on in the deletion process, but this is just how the encyclopedia determines what is notable or not, based on it's own inclusion criteria that's been developed over the years through consensus. It may be helpful and of interest for you to read this content guideline: WP:AUTOBIO and also this essay: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, as it's really difficult to be objective if one is personally connected to the subject of an article. Netherzone (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: Thanks for your message. Yes, I’m Sascha Fonseca and have declared my COI. The Süddeutsche Zeitung article is paywalled because it’s a premium profile — I believe the fact that it’s behind a paywall reflects the value of the content, not a lack of coverage. I understand the Nature TTL piece is self-authored and will look to add more independent sources. While my work isn’t in permanent museum collections, it has been exhibited at the UN, Xposure, and other international venues. Appreciate the engagement. 91.73.1.255 (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please log in, it's confusing to other editors if you are contributing from both an IP address and with a user name. Also, the IP address reveals personal information that you may not want to be made public on this forum. Netherzone (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: Noted. But let’s focus on the content and sources, not which account I happened to be using. I’m here in good faith — that’s what matters. 91.73.1.255 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: covered in NPR [51] and People.com [52] Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Conde Nast India [53]. The photo of the snow leopard appears well-documented. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NPR and People pieces are almost identical, and seem to be based on the same press release. The Condé Nast piece is better. Might this be a case of WP:BLP1E or WP:TOOSOON? The photographs are exceptionally beautiful. Netherzone (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's featured in NPR, [54], ExplorersWeb, [55] the Natural History Museum (London), [56] the BBC, [57] MyModernMet [58] along with others, mostly due to his awards won which still qualifies as notability and substantial recognition, as per option 3 ("... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews") in the WP:PHOTOGRAPHER guidelines. Additionally, he is featured on the Xposure exhibition's website for participating in the event, [59] which in my opinion seems to secure WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. In conclusion, I think that this is enough to qualify for WP:GNG and WP:PHOTOGRAPHER (for the photographer part, I believe that it specifically follows options 3 and 4 for notability) and that the article should hence be kept. One Hop2482 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding the sources - The more closely I examine the sources, they really seem to be the work of Public Relations PR Promo, that is based on this press release: [60], per this disclosure Compiled and prepared by Malik Merchant from (1) Press Release issued on February 9, 2023, by Wildlife Photographer of the Year (WPY), which is developed and produced by the Natural History Museum (NHM), London; (2) Media Kit that Simergphotos was provided access to by the NHM; and (3) Jay Sullivan’s informative article published on the NHM website. The press release issued on Feb. 9, 2023 by the NHM is here: [61] Many of the sources in the article and found online in a BEFORE are not independent journalism, they are iterations of the press release(s). Between that and the pay-to-play Native advertising or Advertorials, listicles, blogs and primary sources I'm leaning more towards D*eletion, per WP:PROMO, however I'm not !voting yet since I'm still trying to find THREE fully independent, secondary reliable sources that provide significant coverage that is not based on the press release. Netherzone (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: These claims are incorrect and frankly dismissive. The article includes multiple independent sources — *Süddeutsche Zeitung*, *Smithsonian Magazine*, *Condé Nast Traveller*, *The Guardian* — none of which are PR or pay-to-play. To call this a promo piece based on a single press release is reductive and ignores the broader context.

If the standard here is three independent, reliable sources, that bar has already been met — and exceeded. I'm happy to improve formatting, but mischaracterizing this as marketing is simply not accurate. 91.73.91.130 (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not dismissive. You had requested more focus on the sources, and this is my analysis. It's not personal, and I'm not dismissing you or your work, which I find to be quite beautiful. I was commenting on the fact that when examined and actually read closely, it's quite clear that most of them, including the Smithsonian and The Guardian are directly based on the press release/media kit that was compiled and prepared by Malik Merchant from (1) Press Release issued on February 9, 2023, by Wildlife Photographer of the Year (WPY), which is developed and produced by the Natural History Museum (NHM), London; (2) Media Kit that Simergphotos was provided access to by the NHM ; and (3) Jay Sullivan’s informative article published on the NHM website. [62] Malik Merchant owns Simergphotos and Simerg.com, so it seems that they were doing the public relations work. Regarding pay to play PR, My Modern Met and World Art News are essentially mills for native advertising. Netherzone (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Besides the COI, this photographer stands out as having significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. However Wikipedia discourages the COI contributions. AndySailz (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is an Wikipedia:Autobiography created by a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and I think it should be deleted as WP:TNT. As it stands, it will forever have the {{Autobiography|date=May 2025}} tag. The source cited in the lede is https://xposure.net/photographer/sascha-fonseca/ which is pure puffery. While Wikipedia guidelines state "don't bite the newbies" and "Assume Good Faith", the editor/subject is clearly not listening WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Their talk page and this AFD are littered with editors trying to explain that the best move is to stop editing the autobiography, yet they keep editing. The photographer/subject should wait for a neutral ~~source~~ editor to create an article. It is in the subject's best interest to have this vanity article go away. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After an exhaustive BEFORE search I have found that all of the sources (except maybe one) are based on the same press release and media kit provided by the organization that issued the non-notable award and an associated PR firm. The sources in the citations are Churnalism, and/or Native advertising (pay-to-play) and/or possibly Advertorials, or are non-independent primary sources that do not count towards notability. The article is clearly WP:PROMO, and based on a thorough analysis of the sources it does not meet either WP:GNG nor WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. The photographs are beautiful though, and his creative process is interesting; this !vote is not a criticism of his work itself. Netherzone (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Lion

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

Non-notable musician. All sourced from what appear to be promotional news releases from the same websites. No WP:SIGCOV. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Germany, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's been around for a long time and was in several bands that had notable people in them, but he's a few steps away from his own notability for a personal article. There is a brief AllMusic bio for his main band World War III [63], who are of questionable notability themselves. He received a recent report from Blabbermouth about a new project [64], but otherwise I can only find a few minor announcements about World War III at the band level. That band might qualify for an article here if anyone wants to create it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unsure on his individual notability, but the band itself likely would be notable. So it may be the best decision to save some stuff from this article, create one for the band, and redirect his page there. Seacactus 13 (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Abbé

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The only sourcing is Olympedia and SR (which is to say, the same source) both of which do not satisfy WP:NSPORTS.

WP:BEFORE is rendered difficult by the existence of the composer Franz Liszt (known as "Abbé Liszt" due to his monk-like haircut), but nothing found on Google or Internet Archive other than passing mentions.

The DE Wiki article is an object-lesson in why editors should not engage in original research in primary sources: no we are not in the business of piecing together someone's life story based on marriage/death certificates and entries in the address book that could easily be about someone with the same name! The only not-primary sourcing in the DE Wiki article is this passing mention and this passing mention. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Olympedia gives a decent paragraph, noting among other things that he designed a house that was temporarily the residence of Albert Einstein(!). It seems highly likely there's more to find here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"he designed a house that was temporarily the residence of Albert Einstein(!)" - Beannie, Einstein was a totally unknown student when he lived in a small room in that apartment block. Being the architect of a building that someone who decades later became famous temporarily lived in is not even slightly a plausible claim to notability. FOARP (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't looked extensively for sources and am currently neutral in this discussion, it should be noted that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Let'srun (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said he "inherits" notability from building a house for Einstein, I only said it strongly indicates there's more to find. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such as “X was an architect who designed houses people lived in in Berlin, including some people who were later famous”. Which isn’t a plausible assertion of notability. EDIT: we have WP:ARCHITECT as the standard of notability for architects. Is there any sign at all that Abbé would pass under any of its headings? No, right? FOARP (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if Olympedia decides to tell us as much as they know about this person, and all they manage to find is that he was the architect for a building that someone who would one day be famous temporarily lived, then this rather indicates that there is not more about him. If there were, they would have published it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nom. is thorough, and I cannot find sources beyond what are discussed there. The complication in searching is well noted! German Wikipedia's page is indeed an object lesson, and should be treated as a self published secondary source. We don't have any indication of notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laura's Star and the Dream Monsters

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

Fails WP:NFILM. All I could find is one short review by KinderFilmWelt (Children's Film World?) to go with the one already sourced in the article, not AFAIK "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep - There's a review by Eltern magazine: [65]. --Mika1h (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Kino-Zeit: [66]. About page is fairly impressive, editor in chief is also a jury member at IFFMH festival. The site had a panel at Filmfest München. The reviewer has also written for Rotten Tomatoes approved publication That Shelf. --Mika1h (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review by de:Vision Kino: [67]

I think that's enough for notability. Even if one were to discount Kino-Zeit (I don't), I think reviews by KinderFilmWelt, Eltern, and Vision Kino are enough for a keep. --Mika1h (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Film is part of a film series with 2 other films and a tv special released by a well-known distributor. the first film doesn't have that many sources either. I also found another review by Kino.de here: http://www.kino.de/kinofilm/lauras-stern-und-die-traummonster/123654, I'll add it to the article later. TheDutchArchivist (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage such as reviews identified in this discussion that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:09, 28 May 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.

List of mass escapes from German POW camps

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

We already have List of prison escapes, List of prisoner-of-war escapes, and German POW camps in WWII, so possibly merge? But no sources, making things confusing and hard to verify (home run?) and has been edited maybe ~50 times in the 15 years since its creation. GoldRomean (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing different from what we already have. Koshuri ^(グ) 10:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of prisoner-of-war escapes any entries that can be sourced and don't already exist there or in the linked sublist List of attempts to escape Oflag IV-C. The criterion of 5+ prisoners is arbitrary anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems to be a better method of organisation than putting them all in the main article, as the list is rather long. Sources can be added. Element10101 T ~ C 02:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15×96mm

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

Lack of notability. I changed this to a redirect to 20×82mm#Usage but was reverted. Seeking consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the redirect is incorrect as it doesnt cover this cartridge. This cartridge was in use throughout WW2 but has too much data to be squeezed into the article MG 151 cannon. There is stuff to write about its history given enough time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockhaj (talk • contribs)

What time? What is enough time according to you? Geschichte (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? The article is not hurting Wikipedia in its current state, it is just a list of cartridges and their data. This is a matter of deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Blockhaj (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HARMLESS - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to understand what you meant, Blockhaj. For instance regarding time, we never write about stuff that we think might catch on in the future (WP:CRYSTALBALL), but in this case, enough time has passed that sources would have been written by this point. Geschichte (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The whole article seems to be copied and pasted from the 316 page manual and there is no secondary sources to prove its actually notable. Its seems to be a development prototype, so wasn't even in anger. So why is on here in the direct. Redirecting with a small para of 2 lines in the destination article would be ideal. scope_creep^Talk 18:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

: Note that it wasn't just a development prototype - it did see service, in the MG-151/15 (which was mainly used in early Bf-109Fs- Williams and Gustin's Flying Guns: World War II notes that the 15 mm gun "may have been more widely used than is generally though".Nigel Ish (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 15 mm variant was also more common in the anti air role due to the higher velocity. The "SdKfz 251/21 Drilling" SPAA and its mount in fixed use featured 15 mm MG 151 guns, and it appeared late in the war. Blockhaj (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also heard about the use in some anti tank rifle but i cannot find anything on it atm so that is a future research project. Blockhaj (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Firearms, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per scope-creep; insifficient WP:SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article per WP:NOPAGE. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A large amount of sourced material was deleted from the article......here's the version with it in there: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15%C3%9796mm&oldid=1291517701. Suggest adding footnotes instead of just saying in talk and edit summaries that it's from the noted source. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see material was removed, but I don't see any citations (at all)... I guess that warranted its removal. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Fire has projectile weight, muzzle velocity and muzzle energy for HE, AP and APCR ammunition.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It does appear the MG 151/15 was used as an antiaircraft weapon (according to the Handbook of German Military Forces) as well as some aircraft. Maybe redirect to MG 151/15? Intothat darkness 19:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourcable content and Redirect to 20×82mm, the cartidge that was developed from this one. Directly related, both cartidges can be covered there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While i prefer this compromize over complete deletion and bloating the MG 151 article, they are completely different cartridges. Sure, the base of the casing is the same, but thats about it. The 20 mm projectiles were taken from the 20x80 Oerlikon cartridge used in the MG FF. Blockhaj (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From 20x82mm - a necked-up 20 mm variant of the 15×96mm cartridge. Projectiles were different, yes. That's...kind of understood as its 20mm instead of 15mm. But the cartridge was a direct development. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but it is shortened as well. We have separate articles for 7.62×51mm NATO and .308 Winchester, and those can essentially not be told apart by eye. Blockhaj (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a good comparison. Both those rounds are in much wider (and contemporary) use, and the differences between them are much less significant than those between the 15x96 and 20x82. Intothat darkness 13:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per those above, to provide the context of how this relates to the broader concept of the redirect target. BD2412 T 19:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - little more than a dicdef.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, let's say that the deleted material was restored and footnotes added (which is what I recommend for clarity here) to reinforce that the material is wp:ver compliant. And let's say that for an article like this the norm is a slightly lenient / not unusually rigorous interpretation of GNG. We still have a "stats-only" article with just "it existed" type scope, and we are not able to readily evaluate whether the source is even somewhat GNG, and the material being limited to "stats-only" also doesn't indicate broader GNG type coverage in the source. And so far Blockhaj has been more focused on the dispute over the deleted material rather than addressing or arguing the GNG question, which is THE question. Both folks involved in the dispute are blocked from article space for 24 hours, so I don't know if @Blockhaj: can respond here. If sources are available and more content could be developed I think it would be preferable to cover it in an article named for it rather than put inside an article with a different name. Short term (like some progress within 2 days) this would need Blockhaj or any advocate for keeping to convince us that sourcing for such is available, probably by describing or deriving more GNG type content from the current source and/or finding more sources. If that is not done, even under a lenient GNG standard (which I recommend) I see no wiki-valid reason (regarding wp:notability) for keeping this as a separate article and IMO the merge to the article on the successor round would be the best move. If that happens, and then more sources are identified in the future, it could be recreated at that time. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is more to add with time, if given, such as its service in the air and why it was eventually superseeded by the 20x82, and also its continued use on the ground (we are mainly talking the addition of projectile damage against different targets here). Development history is also in the pipeline, such as why Mauser went with a 15 mm projectile instead of a 20 mm or 13 mm projectile, etc. Blockhaj (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the minimum for article space for this is to include some sources that have such coverage. Until then draft space is a good place to develop it to that point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will never understand deletionism but then il get a draft going when i have time. Blockhaj (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and Scope creep. Miniapolis 22:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect but... feels like the proper redirect target is 15 mm caliber not the cartridge it eventually got revised into, to reflect that it did still exist for a time in those dimensions.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background info: For those uninvolved, this article was created as a stub for further improvement in the future. The entire table was ported from the MG 151 article, as it and its brother (20×82mm) bloated that article. When there was a suggestion to give 20x82 its own article and port that table there, it was obvious and essentially required to do the same for the 15 mm cartridge, however, due to limited time, it had to be a stub.--Blockhaj (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Independent Film Festival

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

Primary sourced promotion for non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from people they give awards to. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Per WP:COVERAGE section at WP:EVENTS, there is enough sources to satisfy the criteria "diversity of sources" but the "depth of coverage" is lacking. The best articles I found are by Exberliner: [68], Hero (British magazine): [69], and Screen Daily: [70]. The "duration of coverage" is also lacking, very difficult to find coverage of the festival in some years. You would think that winners and film line-ups would be regularly reported but seems to be not the case. --Mika1h (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Junker

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

Article has been orphaned for more than a year; the main subject is of the memorial that never happened, not the person himself. Does not meet WP:BIO LR.127 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Wisconsin. LR.127 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty clear cut application of WP:ONEEVENT here - subject is only notable for a single event that made the news, and all of the coverage of his death focused on that same event. I also don't think the construction of the shrine passes WP:NEVENT, so a page move from Ted Junker to an article about the event is not a viable alternative to deletion. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 16:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UAVDACH

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

A highly promotional article about a pressure group that seems to fail WP:NORG. Having nuked some of the spam in the article, I tried to look for sources, and found none (the group seems to be known as "UAV DACH", and even searching for that got me nothing usable as a source, let alone something that would contribute towards NORG). That said, it is possible that I may be unable to access or find local sources in a search because of my location, and I think bringing it to AfD would also bring this article to the wider community's attention and increase the possibility of sources being found, if they exist. Java Hurricane 18:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Aviation, and Germany. Java Hurricane 18:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is an EN Version of the German Wiki post that provides all sources. Boatschafter (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at that, and most of the references cited there are either to UAV DACH's own website (i.e. not WP:INDEPENDENT of the source), or to registries or other places mentioning the group without providing in-depth significant coverage of the company, or at best some run-of-the-mill routine coverage about the group's elections. Java Hurricane 08:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the sources cited in the English or German Wikipedia articles provide independent, significant coverage of this company. (The two Drones Magazine articles are close, but there is a disclaimer that the magazine is associated with the company, so...nah.) Toadspike [Talk] 08:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rachid Ouaissa

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

I don’t believe this subject passes any of the criteria of WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Algeria, and Germany. Mccapra (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that I can't see a pass of any of the NPROF criteria. A pass of WP:NAUTHOR would be more likely, but I was only able to find the one review already cited in the article, plus this review of one of their edited volumes. A German speaker might have better luck, but I couldn't find nearly enough for notability. MCE89 (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I somehow feel that someone at his rank should have more visible, and maybe the language barrier is preventing us from finding it, but one review of a monograph and one review of an edited volume isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, and I also don't see enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have the necessary sources to demonstrate notability. Lacks WP:GNG, if more sources can be found to bolster notability, let me know. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I estimate his GS h-factor to be 8-10, which is low. However, when I look at those of his co-authors who have profiles, their h-factors are in the range 10-20. Hence I have to conclude that this is a very low citation field, so not as low as the raw numbers suggest. I have not checked if his books have had favorable reviews; I cannot find any awards to boost the case. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some comparative GS profiles are [71], [72], [73], [74], with a couple being in the mid-twenties. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merian Centre for Advanced Studies in the Maghreb

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

Bilateral research centre sourced to the websites of related organisations, lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Tunisia, and Germany. Mccapra (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did this come from draft space? If so, send it back for more work. If not, send it there for more work. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s past the 90 day deadline for sending to draft without coming to AfD first.Mccapra (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But can be sent back to draft by consensus here. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, though if nobody can find decent third party sourcing there’s no point in draftifying it. Mccapra (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tunis University#Organisation. I just added it there. No independent reliable sources can be found, but none of the other organizations at Tunis University are well sourced either. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d support a redirect there thanks. Mccapra (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Hessische Geschichten (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)

Greece

Thanos Kalliris

AfDs for this article:

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

This article written about a Greek musician does not cite any reliable source that can be cross verified. Also if an editor chooses to find reliable sources or choose to add oneself, as per WP:RS, they may not find direct, reliable and primary sources for this person on the internet, but only mentions. According to WP guidelines, which strictly demands reliable sources, it should be either deleted, redirected or reduced to stub. Please leave your opinion. As: Be civil, Do not distract the discussion and your opinion should be grounded with reality. Wh67890 (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wh67890 (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bang (Greek band) first choice, delete is second choice. Can't find any SIGCOV. And it also looks like the Greek article, Θάνος Καλλίρης, is in the same condition of being unsourced. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinos Lolos

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

Declined prod. All the sources are databases/results and insufficient for meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. This source seems dead. His medal is only for a low tier championship and does not meet WP:NATH. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Greece. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:LibStar, why are the Mediterranean Games a "low tier" championship? It would seem to meet WP:NATH prong 2, "Finished top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g., Diamond League / IAAF Golden League meets, less-prestigious large-scale meets, e.g., Asian Games, and any Platinum or Gold World Athletics Label Road Races that are not explicitly mentioned above)". --Habst (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Hill

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

I came across this article whilst looking for the YouTube educator. (who apparently doesn't have an article at this time) Asides from a few external links, there appears to be only one source for this biographical article about a basketball player. I suggest draftification unless users performing WP:BEFORE searches can find sufficient sources to expand and rescue this article. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. When I hastily made my nomination, I assumed the article would be held to the same (or similarly high) notability standards as biographical articles for YouTubers like J. J. McCullough, Mr. Beat and Sambucha, and other sportspeople like Armand Biniakounou and Patrick Chiwala. (I don't really care as much about these two, just thought I'd mention them as examples) Nonetheless, I take away the following from this:

Articles on sportspeople are held to some standards, but apparently those standards may not be as high as the standards for articles about influencers. (I might have run with a fallacy here)
If I had wanted to bring other editors' attention to an article, I could've just tagged it as needing "immediate attention", but that can only be done through certain WikiProject banners. In my experience, tagging an article for "immediate attention" on its talk page ironically seems less effective (than an AfD nomination) at drawing a reasonable amount of attention to an article within a reasonable amount of time.

Nonetheless, as an inclusionist, I'd be satisfied to see the article kept. Feel free to close this discussion as speedy keep at any time. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What an incredibly passive-aggressive withdrawal. Rikster2 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Furthermore, there's a delete !vote, so it's not able to be withdrawn anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a solitary reliable source in a biography of a living person, over the course of 17.8 years, does not an article make, nor begin to meet muster for Wikipedia:Notability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick glance at the sources cited in an article, does not a WP:BEFORE search make... or something something. JTtheOG (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Serbia, Spain, Georgia (U.S. state), and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an incredibly lazy nomination that relies on others to do the work on behalf of the nominator. As Hill was a prominent enough basketball player in Europe, I was able to farm [75] [76] from other languages, [77] is a good article and [78] [79] are other sources. Not all of these are SIGCOV but coverage is easily found, and we don't draftify source-deficient articles if the subject is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 01:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another source. [80] Passes WP:NBASKETBALL. Anyone who is selected in an NBA draft is going to have coverage. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like the nominator saw themselves as the person addressed by the text of WP:BEFORE, but that is how we conventionally mean it - you are supposed to do some due diligence before nominating, as opposed to nominating and expecting others to do it. We're all volunteers, and it's fair to expect some investment of time up front given that you expect others to do some investment of time to then double-check that and back you up. Likewise, a lack of {{inline citations}} (and references being merely links) is a cleanup issue, not a reason for deletion. More fundamentally, if the main thing you wanted is an article about the youtuber, just write one at a disambiguated title, like Kyle Hill (YouTuber). --Joy (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by WikiOriginal-9. Rikster2 (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:NBASKETBALL #1, per the sources provided above by SportingFlyer and WikiOriginal-9. The article could use some improvement, but deletion is not cleanup. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBASKETBALL (apparently something meaningful still there).—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Silly nom apparently done in bad faith. I've added SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doda (footballer)

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

No usable sources (including ja:wiki) and not really anything resembling a claim to notability to meet either WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. No valid redirect target. Geschichte (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I didn't find anything about him even in databases. Svartner (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It lacks sufficient notability and doesn't have enough media coverage. 110 and 135 (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Vikhos

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

Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources are simply databases, and all I could find elsewhere were some mentions like [[81]]. Let'srun (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Greece. Let'srun (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Only found 1 hit in google books. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. King ChristLike (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sigcov Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage that would justify having an article. ZachH007 (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC) Keep. Looks like there is significant coverage. ZachH007 (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per significant coverage identified by Aviationwikiflight, see here. @Let'srun, LibStar, King ChristLike, Svartner, Yoblyblob, and ZachH007: BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to withdraw should the other delete voters be convinced there is enough WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and changing my vote from provided sources and presumption that the offline sources indicate coverage. Finding these also indicates the likelihood of more offline sources Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per the discussion at my talk page already linked above, I managed to find this 100-word piece on him talking about election recommendations, which is further supported by this piece of coverage on the Athenian elections that were to be held later in 1929 where he's mentioned as a candidate for the role of a municipal councilor. I also found his obituary that's around 160 words long (translated by Google Translate):
Andreas Vichos, who passed away a few days ago, was a truly special human type, pulsating with ecumenical faith, with the understanding of social solidarity and with a creative spirit, a truly pure and enthusiastic patriot, ready for any service and sacrifice towards the nation[.] [H]e went to Crete with En pitropan[?] who called El. Venizelon in 1909 [I'm assuming this is referring to Eleftherios Venizelos and the Goudi Coup]. A volunteer in the wars of 1912-1913, he himself received more honorary recognitions, and subsequently he was actively involved in the organization and strengthening of the Thessaloniki Movement of 1916. Both during the first and second world wars he was persecuted by the Germans, ardent sports fan and former shooting athlete[.] He was a member of many sports clubs and represented the national colors in the Olympic games of Antwerp and Paris, being named the best shooter among the inter-allied nations race of 1919 in Paris. An idealistic type of family man, he raised his children with national ideals and always showed them the way to work. [...]
Even though the following links are not significant coverage, they could perhaps add a bit more detail to the article. This talks about his memorial service and this is a one line mention of (presumably) him selling a store in a "parliament environment". Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nice save by Aviationwikiflight FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given new sources brought to this subject leaves us as a place of No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greece at the 1920 Summer Olympics - the newspaper article above [82] is in Greek and attempts to extract the text are frustrated because the auto text selection runs across columns and creates a mess. This frustrates machine translation, but I know a little Greek, and after spending a bit of time on this, here is my translation:
ΑΝΔΡΕΑΣ ΒΗΧΟΣ (ANDREAS VICHOS)
"A prominent and influential member of the mercantile world, Mr. ANDREAS VICHOS, an old [i.e long-time] Athenian and much involved in public affairs, entered the electoral race at the urging of his friends. Rightly so, as his election signifies progress for public matters and the advancement of the city of Athens, for which he has sacrificed the greater part of his life.
Mr. Vichos will certainly be among the first to be elected on August 4th, due to his many merits and because his long mercantile life has made him beloved and popular among the Athenian people."
So what to make of this? Well the most important thing to note is that this is a primary source. It tells us that the page subject was standing for election in Athens. WP:PRIMARYNEWS pertains. Secondly, this is not just a news report; this is an endorsement. As such, it lacks independence. Thirdly it provides almost nothing that we could place in an article even if it were not primary. What does it tell us about the subject other than he was a merchant Certainly nothing at all about what he is allegedly notable for. So this one is not going to get us anywhere.
The obituary has a little more, but it is not much. Obituaries, in any case, also have issues with independence, often being written by family members. It would, perhaps, lead us to further information that might have better coverage, but it is not clear that will be the case. In any case, the passing acquaintance with the Olympics is an also ran in the obituary. There is definitely nothing here to sustain an article about a sportsman. "Being named best shooter" is confirmatory, but for a sports bio we need coverage of his shooting sports career, and on that we have nothing. I don't think the political career meets WP:NPOL either. Thus, I propose redirect to Greece at the 1920 Summer Olympics, where he is already mentioned alongside all the information we have about his shooting sports career. This ATD is in line with many similar cases from early Olympics. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not disputing your vote or the essence of your argument but
- we need coverage of his shooting sports career: that is the easiest part because there are many sites that aggregate these stats like Olympics and Olympian Database
- Obituaries, in any case, also have issues with independence, often being written by family members.: can you prove that? I can show multiple obituaries not written by family members and I am sure you can show the opposite, but you need to support your conjecture.
FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You make two points. My answers:
What I mean is that to sustain an argument that he is notable for the sporting career, we need significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources that show that someone treated him as a subject, and thus wrote about him. We cannot rely solely on results tables or database sources. There is no reason, from these sources, to suppose he had a notable sporting career.

The first thing to note that this obituary is on page 2 of Empros, which is a local paper for the island of Lesvos (commonly called Lesbos in English). It is under a heading titled πένθη which means "obituaries" in the plural. That is, this is an obituaries section, even if there is just one. So if you read WP:OBITUARIES, you will see an essay with guidance (which is also repeated on the reliable sources noticeboard in various places) that tells us A person who has a news obituary (and not a paid death notice) in a national quality newspaper, such as The New York Times or The Times, is usually notable. Paid death notices, on the other hand, are self published sources. See also Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources which has a very short section making that same point. Now here we do not know if this is a paid death notice or whether the newspaper decided to publish the information anyway. Having had some experience of this, I know that most national papers charge for these notices but a local paper often may not. However, in either case the problem is the same: the papers tend to publish these obituaries verbatim as provided to them. There is a very strong case that is what is happening here with this obituary in an obituaries section of a local newspaper. I think it falls well short of establishing notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So point "2)" summarized: "It's my opinion; I have no prove for it" 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, point 2 is summarised as "this is a self published death notice and not even in a national quality newspaper". It does not count towards notability, and even if it did, it has nothing you could add about the subject's sporting career. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not said that. Sirfurboy put their point forward eloquently and they should be thanked for that. It takes time to elaborate to this level so you can get your point across. I learned something today, thanks for that @Sirfurboy FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per found sources in reliable sources. It's likely seeing what is written about him that more coverage exist; but nobody here can speak Greek. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, sources must be independent, reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. Sports bios are required to have one such IRS SIGCOV source, excluding database sources, per WP:SPORTCRIT even if there is a presumption of notability. There is no reason to presume notability here, and we don't have any IRS SIGCOV sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NBASIC If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the IP failed to include the remainder of NBASIC, that being "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability". Let'srun (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources here aren't trivial, though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modern influence of Ancient Greece

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

Just a selective WP:CFORK assortment of other articles on Ancient Greece, doesn't actually contain any information on modern influence. Psychastes (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted by the nominator, there is nothing explicitly discussing the influence of Ancient Greece on modern society. It's a weird collection of famous Greek places/people/ideas that are already covered elsewhere. Doesn't feel like a content fork even --- more like a wholly unnecessary reverse fork. I could imagine an article with this title being appropriate for wikipedia, but if someone wants to tackle that we can start with WP:TNT. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. This is simply a random selection of extracts from existing wikipedia articles about ancient Greece, which largely do not address the supposed topic of the article. I raised this a while back at Talk:Modern influence of Ancient Greece#Scope but did not get a satisfactory answer. There are several existing articles on the legacy/reception of ancient Greece (the broadest-scope ones being Transmission of the Greek Classics, Classical tradition, and Classics) which cover more of the things one would expect in this article than it actually does. An article on the legacy of ancient Greece to parallel Legacy of the Roman Empire could be written – but given this doesn't contain any material not already to be found elsewhere on Wikipedia, and barely discusses the supposed topic, there's no point starting from here. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. by definition, these iconic figures are central to Western Civilization. each section explains why. and compiling from various articles is one valid method for creating an article. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Article is bad" is not a reason for deletion. The influence of ancient Greece on the modern period is certainly something that's been discussed in academia.★Trekker (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StarTrekker Actually, that's not quite true. If an article has such irreparable content issues that it would be more effective to simply delete and remake the article rather than keep it, that is a valid rationale for deletion (albeit one which should not be used lightly). See WP:TNT. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 16:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article subject is theoretically notable, but the many paragraphs of random content within this article simply does not correspond to the subject which the article title purports to cover. The article is a poster child for the blow it up and start it over principle. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 16:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thurii

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

Found while browsing Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles. Cannot find any books or sources that mention this supposed battle that predate the creation of this article in 2007. The only "citations" this article has are incomplete citations which just say a book title and nothing else. No authors, no year of publishing, no ISBN, nothing. And the "source" titles are extremely vague, like "History of Rome" or "Antiquity".

(Note: I know there were actual battles between Tarantos and ancient Rome for control of the area, but I cannot find evidence that "Battle of Thurii" was one of those battles, or that there was any "naval battle" for the region.) ApexParagon (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Greece, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The editor who created this stub seems to have been inactive on Wikipedia since 2013, but nothing on his/her talk page suggests that it was created as a hoax (I was looking for warnings of various sorts). Given that the part about Thurii is only a single sentence, while the rest concerns Rome's conflict with Tarentum, I wonder if perhaps the editor was confused about the sequence of events—perhaps including the dates. My first thought was to check the history of the cities in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, and see if it mentioned something similar to a battle at this time. Under "Tarentum", at p. 1097, if you scroll down the first column there's a description of Rome and Tarentum coming into conflict over Thurii, though this is supposed to have occurred in 302 BC, while the Tarentines didn't call in Pyrrhus until 281, when the Romans declared war on Tarentum.

This sounds like what the article creator had in mind, but unless the description is in error—which is possible, though it's hard to see "302" as a typo for "282" under "Tarentum"—the editor might have been confused by a less precise description such as the corresponding passage under "Thurii", top of the first column on p. 1193. I believe both are citing Appian's Samnite Wars, though additional sources are cited in "Tarentum" that might also shed light on this. I agree that the existing citations for this article are not very helpful, but thankfully knowing what sources describe the conflicts may help sort out whether there's enough here to salvage (at the very least, it can probably be merged under Thurii, Tarentum, and Pyrrhus, which would technically not be a deletion).

I expect Broughton can also be cited. I did not resort to PW, because wading through pages of densely-annotated German that I have to translate by retyping passages that I think are relevant on Google can be quite time-consuming! Not sure where else I would look besides the Greek and Roman authors cited in the DGRG, but perhaps someone else has some ideas on that. In any case, I think we can conclude that the article is not a hoax, but it might not be focused on its purported subject—Thurii—and might be better off mentioned in other articles than as a stand-alone one. P Aculeius (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - probably not a hoax. The Catalan article, ca:Batalla de Turis, and the Italian article, it:Battaglia di Thurii, were edited by two different editors who have not edited this article. Both have offline references.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have an analysis of above additions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, the Catalan and Italian articles also have vague sourcing, only listing a page or a book, with no isbn or any sort of online listing. I wouldn't count them as either RS or non-RS... They just look like the "good enough" sourcing that was used back in the early days of Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not enough sourcing to keep this... The vague sources used don't really give any indication of how you'd even locate them, if they're in a book, a magazine, or anything else. One of those old Wiki articles that was "good enough" 20 yrs ago and just looks sad these days. I don't even think sending this to draft would help. I can't find sources that talk about this event... We just don't have enough fo show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Chiliopodarousa (via WP:PROD on 11 April 2025)

Hungary

Gyula Kakas

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

Fails WP:NSPORT due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Hungary. FOARP (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hungary at the 1896 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics, where his name was mentioned. Corresponding article on Hungarian Wikipedia does not even contain significant coverage, whether online or archived. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wow, two times in one day. I must be a lucky duck. Looks like the gymnastics class reunion will spill over to here too so can't leave out Sirfurboy and JoelleJay. I'm not even sure how to find Hungarian newspapers, but came across this nifty thing and looks like they have many hits for "Gyula Kakas" with sports-y looking documents and newspapers. Here's another search for "Gyula Kokas", which per our favorite Olympedia (and I guess Sports Reference too) he also went by. They have 136 and 165 hits respectively, none of which I can access. All that aside, the Hungarian Olympic Committee seems to have a fairly in-depth profile on him also. Seeing as how he participated in athletics (unofficial Hungarian pole vault record holder!) and soccer (yeah, yeah, 1 game for Budapesti TC), might make sense to also include those deletion thingies for those projects also. GauchoDude (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to ping me. I have the Sportspeople deletion sorting watch listed. Please stop pinging me everywhere. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. JoelleJay (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't done a complete search yet, but from a brief look, here's about a 100 words on him in a book from the 2000s ([83]) and then about ~350 words in a 1930s newspaper here, praising him as having "extraordinary skill, and [he] did gymnastics like no one else before him. He rose to fame with phenomenal speed and ... [his club] MTK was almost in mourning when he changed the blue and white colours for the red and white colours of BTC... Lightness, precise posture, inventiveness and virtuoso skill made Gyula Kakas, the best gymnast of his time, unrivalled...Few Hungarian champions were able to remain in the spotlight for as long as Gyula Kakas, and this was also a characteristic of his excellence." I'm about 99.9% certain he's notable, but will look further later. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

József Somogyi (footballer, born 1955)

AfDs for this article:

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

Was soft-deleted through AfD back in October, after which it was quickly recreated, even though they didn't go through the object process. Same issues still apply as per Demt1298's original nom: "Fails WP:GNG. Searches have failed to show WP:SIGCOV " Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Searches have failed to show WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:10, 25 May 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.

Aron Reisz

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, Hungary, and Romania. Joeykai (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep. I see 13 sources listed in this article, seven on which appear to be reliable web sites or news sources in Hungarian and German. I'm curious exactly where the nominator searched in a WP:BEFORE. Were non-English language articles searched? Flibirigit (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding much significant coverage of the player in reliable sources. Significant coverage is only in a hockey blog. There is certainly difficulty in searching Hungarian sources, but thus far my search has been unsuccessful.

Here is a quick assessment of the sources in the article (note: I am relying on google translate for these). Not sure if this will change your mind @Flibirigit:

1,4,8,10,11,12 are from a hockey blog and are not reliable

2: About national team, not player. Reisz only mentioned in roster list.

3: Only appears in roster list

5: Routine game coverage mentioning Reisz goal

6: Routine game coverage that mentions Reisz

7: Page not found

9: Behind paywall; most likely source for establishing notability

13: Only appears in roster list

Given there is only one potentially reliable, in-depth source this article should be deleted as it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - found three Hungarian sources [84], [85], and [86]. The last one is tabloidy but the first two seem to be on a legitimate news site. Zzz plant (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Flag of Serbia (Habsburg) (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)

Iceland

Hálfdán Helgi Matthíasson

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

Article can be merged with existing Væb page, consisting of the two brothers. Content replicates that of the Eurovision section of the Væb page and article principally mentions Væb and not Hálfdán on its own. Proposing a speedy redirect back to Væb. Edl-irishboy (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Music, and Iceland. Edl-irishboy (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Væb for now as an Alternative to deletion. I don't think he is well enough established outside of last Eurovision to have his own article just yet. Alvaldi (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jóhann Hinrik Níelsson

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I was unable to find any significant coverage with a Google search in Icelandic media or in the Icelandic newspaper archives (timarit.is). Deaths of notable Icelandic persons does generally get coverage in Morgunblaðið but I didn't find any outside of obituaries from relatives. Alvaldi (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Alvaldi (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Iceland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, as far as I can tell very few sources exist on this topic. Garsh (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Ireland

Dean of Kilmacduagh

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

Fails WP:NLIST, topic is not independently notable from the monastery, and any needed information could be merged to the primary Kilmacduagh monastery article. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Christianity, Europe, and Ireland. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. One and done, right? Hyperbolick (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It should be merged to Kilmacduagh monastery. Fade258 (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kilmacduagh monastery: No reason for this to be a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James P Mahon

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

Refbombed promotion for non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Many sources but most are by him instead of about him. A little bit of local interest puff but nothing significant. Awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, Radio, Television, Sports, Ireland, Romania, England, Scotland, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have decided not to make a specific recommendation here. Yet. As, frankly, I wonder if I can leave aside the years of WP:COI and WP:REFBOMB concerns that I've struggled with on this title. And, perhaps, any !vote contribution from me may not be fully objective. However, I have long wondered whether WP:BASIC and WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NACADEMIC are met here. As, IMO, there is limited evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The sources (in the article and seemingly those that are available) are almost all either written by the subject (some about himself and others just things he has written generally), or by entities associated with the subject (university bio profiles, Huffington Post profile, news employer bio, etc), or are just trivial passing mentions. The only three sources, of which the subject is a primary topic and which are could be considered somewhat independent, are the three pieces in the local Clare Champion newspaper (from 2013, 2021 & 2022). And, personally, I'd question whether these are fully independent. Or whether these types of "local boy graduates" stories materially contribute to notability. Any more than this "former co-worker wrote autobiography" piece is strictly independent. Anyway. If I was confident that years of COI/REFBOMB/FV annoyance with this title weren't influencing my recommendation, I'd probably lean "delete". But, being perfectly frank and hopefully somewhat self-aware, I'm not convinced would be an entirely objective recommendation (based entirely on NBIO merit).... Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a tricky one to try and assess. Ultimately I think notability is not there. There is some coverage but is it significant? I think not. Looking at the academic side, I don't think the research and published works are there yet. The awards are non-notable really and as for the references, most are published own works. It almost feels kind of WP:Auto even if it isn't. Coldupnorth (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keily Blair

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

Inherited notability from OnlyFans & Blair's positions at the company. While there are good sources surrounding her hiring as CEO, it speaks to a single event in her life. I don't see how this could be anything other than promotional. 30Four (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Law. 30Four (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Ireland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious here, why this one and not Amrapali Gan? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great point, I've nominated that one as well. 30Four (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passes WP:BASIC with multiple sources. Google news search brings up quite a few articles where they are the focus. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject may pass WP:BASIC up front for coverage of her becoming the CEO of OnlyFans, but she does not appear to be notable for any other action. Lots of additional press appears to stem from actions of the company as a whole or interviews with her. Could you post the articles you feel best represent her notability, aside from OnlyFans? 30Four (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 3 and 4 are ok, 7 is an interview. More than enough coverage for a CEO of one of the largest websites on the planet, notability is shown. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:ONEEVENT - Only notability comes as CEO of OnlyFans. Source 3 and 4 only talk about her as CEO and background only because of that. Source 7 is some random awards-giving non-profit.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the article was created by a paid editor user:AG at OnlyFans; so as CEO running the company, she paid one of her employees to create this page for her.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding COI notice to article ApexParagon (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OnlyFans, where she and her role in the company are mentioned. ApexParagon (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fail to see the relevance of WP:ONEEVENT here. Being the CEO of a major company is not an "event". If someone meets WP:GNG because they have attracted coverage for holding a notable position or role, that doesn't affect their notability in the slightest. Most of our article subjects have "inherited" their notability from some kind of position for which they have received coverage (e.g. footballers, politicians, musicians), so I have no clue why a CEO should be treated differently. I agree with Oaktree b that sources 3 and 4 provide significant coverage of Blair herself and are sufficient to meet GNG. There's also this article in the South China Morning Post, which is a bit weirdly written but is still a bylined article in a reliable source, and this in Fortune. I think she easily meets GNG. MCE89 (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:BASIC with significant coverage in independent reliable sources including in The New Statesman [87], Fortune (magazine) [88], Variety (magazine) [89], and this by Reuters in American newspapers [90]/[91] (not yet in article). WP:BIO1E does not apply if coverage is sustained over time, which it is here. Article could use some editing but subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Nnev66 (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eyre Evans

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Barely even gets a mention in genealogy lists. Practically the entire page is about his relatives, along with the sale of (presumably) his estate decades after his death. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Mccapra (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is really nothing about the subject in the article and nothing substantial found. ww2censor (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Carry

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

The article seems to be AI generated as many others by this user and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Even the primary sources do not support some of the claims in the article. C 679 04:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ireland. C 679 04:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Ian Carry meets WP:COACH through notable roles including head coach at NCAA Division I level, interim coach of a national team, goalkeeping coach of a national team, and current head coach of the U.S. Men's Beach Soccer National Team.[92][93] He has held multiple verified coaching and technical[94]positions at national and[95]collegiate levels.[96] The article is not AI-generated and is improvable. Wq4m820 (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 04:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holafly

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

This appears to be a basic summary of a non-notable commercial operation - no assertion of notability is made, and the service it provides is routine / non-innovative. A mention in a list of eSIM operators would seem sufficient. SeoR (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SeoR (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Spain. MarioGom (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:PRODUCT. An in-depth review in TechRadar - [97] - in-depth coverage in Levante-EMV - [98] - and La Vanguardia - [99] - is enough to pass WP:GNG threshold as well. 82.117.28.137 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland/Article_alerts#RfD

See: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#Template:Hiberno-English

Italy

Moro Alhassan

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

24 professional appearances at Serie B and Serie C level before disappearing from the sport. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Ghana, and Italy. RossEvans19 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lyal S. Sunga

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

I don't know that this person is notable. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one article is not primary. He also doesn't have too many academic citations in Google Scholar.Goodboyjj (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorio Napoleone

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

Resume-like and seems to violate WP:NOPROMO. Also lacking WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this WP:REFBOMB, sources are all either non-independent primary org profiles, or passing mentions in articles about his wife or other other topics. Independant SIGCOV is entirely lacking. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

San Pantaleone, Chamois

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

Not seeing a WP:GNG pass for this small Italian church. The article's only sources are a local tourism website and a history on the comune's website, which would be a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Didn't find anything else in my WP:BEFORE search, although if independent, secondary WP:SIGCOV is found please ping me. A BLAR was contested so seeking consensus for a redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Aosta or a similarly appropriate target. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Christianity, and Italy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Chamois, Aosta Valley, where the content would serve a useful purpose. ~~Nom is being too picky in terms of sourcing IMO.~~ Ingratis (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC) I put that very badly. What I was getting at was that although the sourcing is inadequate for a standalone article, as nom says, it should be enough for a redirect to the comune article to support a single sentence to the effect that the parish church, of which there is already a picture, is dedicated to San Pantaleone (the same could be supported from other sources). I don't see much point in redirecting to the diocese article, since the parish is not mentioned there. Ingratis (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. I am OK with a merge to your proposed target as well and I agree that the sources are valid for such a purpose. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Hill

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

I came across this article whilst looking for the YouTube educator. (who apparently doesn't have an article at this time) Asides from a few external links, there appears to be only one source for this biographical article about a basketball player. I suggest draftification unless users performing WP:BEFORE searches can find sufficient sources to expand and rescue this article. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. When I hastily made my nomination, I assumed the article would be held to the same (or similarly high) notability standards as biographical articles for YouTubers like J. J. McCullough, Mr. Beat and Sambucha, and other sportspeople like Armand Biniakounou and Patrick Chiwala. (I don't really care as much about these two, just thought I'd mention them as examples) Nonetheless, I take away the following from this:

Articles on sportspeople are held to some standards, but apparently those standards may not be as high as the standards for articles about influencers. (I might have run with a fallacy here)
If I had wanted to bring other editors' attention to an article, I could've just tagged it as needing "immediate attention", but that can only be done through certain WikiProject banners. In my experience, tagging an article for "immediate attention" on its talk page ironically seems less effective (than an AfD nomination) at drawing a reasonable amount of attention to an article within a reasonable amount of time.

Nonetheless, as an inclusionist, I'd be satisfied to see the article kept. Feel free to close this discussion as speedy keep at any time. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What an incredibly passive-aggressive withdrawal. Rikster2 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Furthermore, there's a delete !vote, so it's not able to be withdrawn anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a solitary reliable source in a biography of a living person, over the course of 17.8 years, does not an article make, nor begin to meet muster for Wikipedia:Notability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick glance at the sources cited in an article, does not a WP:BEFORE search make... or something something. JTtheOG (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Serbia, Spain, Georgia (U.S. state), and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an incredibly lazy nomination that relies on others to do the work on behalf of the nominator. As Hill was a prominent enough basketball player in Europe, I was able to farm [100] [101] from other languages, [102] is a good article and [103] [104] are other sources. Not all of these are SIGCOV but coverage is easily found, and we don't draftify source-deficient articles if the subject is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 01:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another source. [105] Passes WP:NBASKETBALL. Anyone who is selected in an NBA draft is going to have coverage. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like the nominator saw themselves as the person addressed by the text of WP:BEFORE, but that is how we conventionally mean it - you are supposed to do some due diligence before nominating, as opposed to nominating and expecting others to do it. We're all volunteers, and it's fair to expect some investment of time up front given that you expect others to do some investment of time to then double-check that and back you up. Likewise, a lack of {{inline citations}} (and references being merely links) is a cleanup issue, not a reason for deletion. More fundamentally, if the main thing you wanted is an article about the youtuber, just write one at a disambiguated title, like Kyle Hill (YouTuber). --Joy (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by WikiOriginal-9. Rikster2 (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:NBASKETBALL #1, per the sources provided above by SportingFlyer and WikiOriginal-9. The article could use some improvement, but deletion is not cleanup. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBASKETBALL (apparently something meaningful still there).—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Silly nom apparently done in bad faith. I've added SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Girolamo Di Fazio

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

Nomination: Notability questioned. Appears to be notable for only one event (the arrest of someone who is notable). ash (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological area of Corte Sgarzerie

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

Utterly redundant, repeating what is in Corte Sgarzerie#Archaeological area. Neither page is particularly long. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, Geography, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need an AFD to do a WP:BOLD merge/redirect of an obviously redundant page. Reywas92^Talk 19:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thurii

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

Found while browsing Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles. Cannot find any books or sources that mention this supposed battle that predate the creation of this article in 2007. The only "citations" this article has are incomplete citations which just say a book title and nothing else. No authors, no year of publishing, no ISBN, nothing. And the "source" titles are extremely vague, like "History of Rome" or "Antiquity".

(Note: I know there were actual battles between Tarantos and ancient Rome for control of the area, but I cannot find evidence that "Battle of Thurii" was one of those battles, or that there was any "naval battle" for the region.) ApexParagon (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Greece, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The editor who created this stub seems to have been inactive on Wikipedia since 2013, but nothing on his/her talk page suggests that it was created as a hoax (I was looking for warnings of various sorts). Given that the part about Thurii is only a single sentence, while the rest concerns Rome's conflict with Tarentum, I wonder if perhaps the editor was confused about the sequence of events—perhaps including the dates. My first thought was to check the history of the cities in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, and see if it mentioned something similar to a battle at this time. Under "Tarentum", at p. 1097, if you scroll down the first column there's a description of Rome and Tarentum coming into conflict over Thurii, though this is supposed to have occurred in 302 BC, while the Tarentines didn't call in Pyrrhus until 281, when the Romans declared war on Tarentum.

This sounds like what the article creator had in mind, but unless the description is in error—which is possible, though it's hard to see "302" as a typo for "282" under "Tarentum"—the editor might have been confused by a less precise description such as the corresponding passage under "Thurii", top of the first column on p. 1193. I believe both are citing Appian's Samnite Wars, though additional sources are cited in "Tarentum" that might also shed light on this. I agree that the existing citations for this article are not very helpful, but thankfully knowing what sources describe the conflicts may help sort out whether there's enough here to salvage (at the very least, it can probably be merged under Thurii, Tarentum, and Pyrrhus, which would technically not be a deletion).

I expect Broughton can also be cited. I did not resort to PW, because wading through pages of densely-annotated German that I have to translate by retyping passages that I think are relevant on Google can be quite time-consuming! Not sure where else I would look besides the Greek and Roman authors cited in the DGRG, but perhaps someone else has some ideas on that. In any case, I think we can conclude that the article is not a hoax, but it might not be focused on its purported subject—Thurii—and might be better off mentioned in other articles than as a stand-alone one. P Aculeius (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - probably not a hoax. The Catalan article, ca:Batalla de Turis, and the Italian article, it:Battaglia di Thurii, were edited by two different editors who have not edited this article. Both have offline references.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have an analysis of above additions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, the Catalan and Italian articles also have vague sourcing, only listing a page or a book, with no isbn or any sort of online listing. I wouldn't count them as either RS or non-RS... They just look like the "good enough" sourcing that was used back in the early days of Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not enough sourcing to keep this... The vague sources used don't really give any indication of how you'd even locate them, if they're in a book, a magazine, or anything else. One of those old Wiki articles that was "good enough" 20 yrs ago and just looks sad these days. I don't even think sending this to draft would help. I can't find sources that talk about this event... We just don't have enough fo show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Latvia

Angeline Kavindu Musili

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

Generally along the lines of WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret M. Otteskov - consensus appears to be that ambassadors are not inherently notable. As for WP:GNG - Most of the sourcing is either non-independent or just mentions subject (i.e. does not cover her in any depth). There are 3 sources that don't appear to mention her at all. I have decent access to Scandinavian papers and speak Swedish so I also looked for any possible WP:SIGCOV there and was not able to find anything besides one mention. The Kenyan award she received, Burning Spear, does not appear to be exceptionally prestigious (she received the third class variety of the second tier order overall, alongside almost 200 ppl) so I'm doubtful if it could confer inherent notability on its own. Zzz plant (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment The consensus has agreed, I understand, that ambassadors are not inherently notable. This is despite Wikidata's consensus that Ambassador is not someone's job, but it is an award. Noting that other people are being mentioned in the rationale above. I note that we have over 100,000 people on Wikipedia who are notable because they were chosen by a town somewhere to kick a ball on their behalf. If they go on to represent their country then they become extra notable...(alongside well over 20,000 others - not 200) as long as they keep kicking a ball then they may be made ambassadors for the UN, leading charities or companies. I feel that the basis of this argument is that "ambassadors are not notable" - which is an idea that has never been proposed or agreed. This person has two national awards - the burning spear and being recognised as a representative of her country by her country and several others. You may not think that the American ambassador to Malawi is not notable - but it makes no sense to ignore the award and recognition that was given to that person when they were appointed. Ambassadors in Malawi are not only appointed by the President but they are grilled by a parliamentary committee to check that they are a notable candidate for the award of this position. Victuallers (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - maybe there's been a misunderstanding, my argument wasn't that "ambassadors are not notable", it was that - based on my current understanding - they don't have presumed or inherent notability, which is why I searched for SIGCOV, attempted to evaluate the burning spear award. and looked into the possibility of a national biography entry. Zzz plant (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I live in the U.S. so my access to information about African diplomats to European countries may be limited compared to, say, people who live geographically closer. Ergo, it interests me greatly to read a Wikipedia biography about an ambassador from Kenya to Finland, Latvia, etc. Notwithstanding the remarks made about quantity and quality of sources found, IMHO, it would be a pity to delete the article and lose the historical facts regarding diplomacy. (I came here because of the deletion notice at Women, but my comment stands regardless of the subject's gender.) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point was that at one point being an ambassador was considered notable, now (I'm told) its not. So it was notable, and its not now. Are we now to discount an ambassadorship completely? That would appear to take a binary approach to a notability decision that this very process shows is loaded with opinion. Surely we should not be looking not for a new argument, but a small piece of evidence to add to the substantial piece of evidence of a national award (ie being made an ambassador). It seems to me that evidence that was once thought to be totally persuasive is now being discounted completely (mistakenly IMO) as no longer relevant. There are several independent sources that record that she has the award of being an ambassador. It is being argued below that "it is not because of the sources in the article." But, there are still several independent sources if we consider ones that support the award of ambassadorship and the other national award. Victuallers (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for sources about her you can check the government website + plus the sources in the article that should be enough for notability FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - the link is published by the Embassy of the Republic of Kenya in Stockholm; that's the organization she represents ( bio is under 'about us'), so it is not an independent source. Zzz plant (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citing WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Unless you think the Republic of Kenya in Stockholm is not reputable.

The other thing, primary source can be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. Which this website does. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with this discussion. You can't use primary sources to show notability. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she is notable, it is not because of the sources in the article - she was one of many award recipients and a BEFORE search brings up little beyond the fact she's an ambassador. It's possible I'm missing something but it doesn't look like there's SIGCOV of her specifically here. SportingFlyer T·C 06:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: First, for those unfamiliar with AFD, please do not only present an argument but your outcome preference in BOLD, your choices are Keep, Delete, Draftify, Redirect or Merge. It really helps a closer as does indicating what policy or guideline supports your argument so it is not just based in your opinion. This usually involves an evaluation of sources in the article or ones you have located. As for ambassadors, I know we delete a lot of their articles, mostly through PRODs but also through the AFD process. Most of the time, the discussions do not get this level of attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Lithuania

Simonna

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

Promotional autobiography for notable actor and singer. None of here roles are good for NACTOR. No sign of any charting/gold/rotation/major awards for her music. Her Eurovision participation was only in qualifying, she did not make it to Eurovision. No major awards. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. (Whilst I call it an autobiography, multiple people (including her) are using the one account that contributed much of the content) duffbeerforme (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Lithuania. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angeline Kavindu Musili

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

Generally along the lines of WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret M. Otteskov - consensus appears to be that ambassadors are not inherently notable. As for WP:GNG - Most of the sourcing is either non-independent or just mentions subject (i.e. does not cover her in any depth). There are 3 sources that don't appear to mention her at all. I have decent access to Scandinavian papers and speak Swedish so I also looked for any possible WP:SIGCOV there and was not able to find anything besides one mention. The Kenyan award she received, Burning Spear, does not appear to be exceptionally prestigious (she received the third class variety of the second tier order overall, alongside almost 200 ppl) so I'm doubtful if it could confer inherent notability on its own. Zzz plant (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment The consensus has agreed, I understand, that ambassadors are not inherently notable. This is despite Wikidata's consensus that Ambassador is not someone's job, but it is an award. Noting that other people are being mentioned in the rationale above. I note that we have over 100,000 people on Wikipedia who are notable because they were chosen by a town somewhere to kick a ball on their behalf. If they go on to represent their country then they become extra notable...(alongside well over 20,000 others - not 200) as long as they keep kicking a ball then they may be made ambassadors for the UN, leading charities or companies. I feel that the basis of this argument is that "ambassadors are not notable" - which is an idea that has never been proposed or agreed. This person has two national awards - the burning spear and being recognised as a representative of her country by her country and several others. You may not think that the American ambassador to Malawi is not notable - but it makes no sense to ignore the award and recognition that was given to that person when they were appointed. Ambassadors in Malawi are not only appointed by the President but they are grilled by a parliamentary committee to check that they are a notable candidate for the award of this position. Victuallers (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - maybe there's been a misunderstanding, my argument wasn't that "ambassadors are not notable", it was that - based on my current understanding - they don't have presumed or inherent notability, which is why I searched for SIGCOV, attempted to evaluate the burning spear award. and looked into the possibility of a national biography entry. Zzz plant (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I live in the U.S. so my access to information about African diplomats to European countries may be limited compared to, say, people who live geographically closer. Ergo, it interests me greatly to read a Wikipedia biography about an ambassador from Kenya to Finland, Latvia, etc. Notwithstanding the remarks made about quantity and quality of sources found, IMHO, it would be a pity to delete the article and lose the historical facts regarding diplomacy. (I came here because of the deletion notice at Women, but my comment stands regardless of the subject's gender.) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point was that at one point being an ambassador was considered notable, now (I'm told) its not. So it was notable, and its not now. Are we now to discount an ambassadorship completely? That would appear to take a binary approach to a notability decision that this very process shows is loaded with opinion. Surely we should not be looking not for a new argument, but a small piece of evidence to add to the substantial piece of evidence of a national award (ie being made an ambassador). It seems to me that evidence that was once thought to be totally persuasive is now being discounted completely (mistakenly IMO) as no longer relevant. There are several independent sources that record that she has the award of being an ambassador. It is being argued below that "it is not because of the sources in the article." But, there are still several independent sources if we consider ones that support the award of ambassadorship and the other national award. Victuallers (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for sources about her you can check the government website + plus the sources in the article that should be enough for notability FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - the link is published by the Embassy of the Republic of Kenya in Stockholm; that's the organization she represents ( bio is under 'about us'), so it is not an independent source. Zzz plant (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citing WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Unless you think the Republic of Kenya in Stockholm is not reputable.

The other thing, primary source can be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. Which this website does. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with this discussion. You can't use primary sources to show notability. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she is notable, it is not because of the sources in the article - she was one of many award recipients and a BEFORE search brings up little beyond the fact she's an ambassador. It's possible I'm missing something but it doesn't look like there's SIGCOV of her specifically here. SportingFlyer T·C 06:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: First, for those unfamiliar with AFD, please do not only present an argument but your outcome preference in BOLD, your choices are Keep, Delete, Draftify, Redirect or Merge. It really helps a closer as does indicating what policy or guideline supports your argument so it is not just based in your opinion. This usually involves an evaluation of sources in the article or ones you have located. As for ambassadors, I know we delete a lot of their articles, mostly through PRODs but also through the AFD process. Most of the time, the discussions do not get this level of attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Moldova

Others

Montenegro

Others

Netherlands

Big L 1395

AfDs for this article:

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

Article with insufficient sourcing since 2010 about a radio station that briefly lasted. I am not sure where they are getting the dates of 1955-present. The one source from the Guardian is actually kinda decent but the other two are just press releases so no establishing notability there. Moritoriko (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. Moritoriko (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Netherlands and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per NEXIST, what matters is whether there are good sources out there. Not how good the references in the article are. I do not see an indication of a BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emran Barakzai

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

Player without any notable spells who only played for Jong Ajax and amateur teams in the Netherlands. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, Netherlands, and Afghanistan. Svartner (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He played 6 minutes plus extra time of professional league football with Ajax U-23, where he was a bencher. Since, he has been playing amateur soccer, and not always on first squads. That is very healthy and much more than I ever did in soccer! Still, the coverage is either not independent or not SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrow Night

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

News Tower appears to be notable, but this studio is not notable. A merge to the game seems apt, though it would become a problem if the studio released more than one game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per nom, textbook case for WP:NOTINHERITED. IgelRM (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to News Tower, not independently notable. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to News Tower. There really needs to be an essay on how WP:NOTINHERITED applies to creators of works where sourcing on the works is the only evidence provided to support the notability of the creator. That generally fails WP:GNG every time. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's some subtlety though and I think it differs by field of work. For video games, films, and television, we tend to have articles on the works first, and tend to construe information on the creators as information on them creating that work. For music and visual art, we tend to have articles on the creators first. Literature is a mix. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LIZY (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are either based on company announcements (fail WP:ORGIND) or funding and launch announcements (fail WP:ORGTRIV). ~ A412 ^talk! 22:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Belgium, France, and Netherlands. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this article that is not included in the references right now. Also this one. gidonb (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Socialist Party (Netherlands, 2025)

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

Similar translations have been rejected in Draft space twice, see Draft:Revolutionary Socialist Party (Netherlands - 2025). As I have pointed out, coverage is mostly related to the Socialist Party (Netherlands). There is this article, but in total I don't think the topic meets the notability threshold and it is better to wait for more coverage and/or electoral success. Dajasj (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Netherlands. Dajasj (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I respectfully disagree. As the Wikipedia guidelines state that "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I'd argue that sources with independent coverage such as Trouw, DUIC [nl], Dagblad010 in combination with sources such as RTL Nieuws that have coverage mostly related to the Socialist Party (Netherlands), add up to a topic that can be deemed as having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Furthermore, as the page already has a Dutch and Chinese translation, it would seem strange to deny an English translation, which seems like there is a double standard.

In short, I think there is enough coverage to meet the notability threshold. Electoral success as a prerequisite for the page doesn't seem logical to me, considering other existing pages of Dutch political parties that have not yet had any electoral successes. The Trouw article also explicitly covers antiparliamentary sentiments within the party, which implies the party itself does not prioritize electoral successes at least in the same way that the deletion request suggests.

I'd be happy to hear if you could detail which of the requirements from the general notability guideline exactly is missing and therefore how the article fails to meet the threshold. PS. Sorry If I messed some formatting up. I'm new to the AfD process.

Noverraz99 (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Noverraz99 (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article doesn't look like it's in the best shape, but I am going over my head. Can someone from the Netherlands comment on the reliability of RSP and ROOD?
- Comment Indeed the article link seems to be broken. Luckily, it is archived here. As a person from the Netherlands I'd consider there to be enough reliable coverage of RSP and ROOD to warrant their articles, though if people disagree I would be open to hear their reasoning. Noverraz99 (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The only source that you provided above is mentioned in the nomination statement. It might also be the only valid sources available to establish notability. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can totally grasp someone's frustration that there are so many political parties in the Netherlands. Yet we follow the P&G. This meets the GNG and NORG. It's a proper SPINOFF of its parent. gidonb (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proper spinoff? Whether or not WP:SPINOFF is guaranteed, it does not mean that the topic is immediately notable (notability is not inherited). And please provide sources that prove that the subject is notable enough. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is automatically notable. Why place such a reaction? Also, several others listed fine sources. No need to rehash that. As a justified SPINOFF, there is no case to delete. gidonb (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree with the nominator that the coverage from reliable sources has focused on the SP, not the RSP. "Significant coverage" means in-depth, focused coverage on the article topic in multiple reliable sources, not merely that multiple reliable sources mention it as part of the story. WP:ORG requires focused coverage. There is no inherited notability, and it seems to me that the undetailed coverage of the RSP only exists because of the SP, not because the RSP has done anything notable (yet). Yue🌙 22:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd argue coverage from the Algemeen Dagblad, Trouw and DUIC [nl] which all explicitly mention the RSP separate from the SP would count as significant. Simply put, the argument that the coverage would only exist because of the SP doesn't seem to hold up when for instance the Algemeen Dagblad article is in great part about, and features a prominent image of, the action headed by RSP.
Noverraz99 (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re [The sources] all explicitly mention the RSP separate from the SP would count as significant. This does not count brief mentions, which does not count towards WP:SIGCOV. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject has proven to not be notable of any sort, maybe exclude the one source mentioned above. I am also not opposed to a merger to Socialist Party (Netherlands) as an WP:ATD. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these reliable sources clearly show SIGCOV: Op de Dag van de Arbeid dromen socialistische jongeren hardop van de revolutie, SP royeert tientallen leden vanwege 'dubbel lidmaatschap', Er komt een nieuwe Revolutionair Socialistische Partij in Rotterdam. Passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the sources brought up by Goldsztajn.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the first two sources provided by Goldsztajn have significant coverage; in my opinion they suffer from the same problem of being focused on the SP and only being reported because of the SP. A splinter group doesn't inherit notability just because the more notable organisation it split from received coverage because of the split. The third source has focused coverage, but it's from a minor, local news site, and speaks mostly to the RSP's potential in the future. I'm not sure what makes the RSP notable at present aside from arguments that amount to inherited notability. Might be a WP:TOOSOON problem as well. Yue🌙 18:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bresser

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Unable to find significant independent coverage, although his club (PSV) has some press releases; other than that, it's just database entries. — Moriwen (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. — Moriwen (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Not sure why it wasn't sent to draft space in the first place. Could easily be notable in the future. Govvy (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than 90 days old and therefore ineligible, alas.— Moriwen (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 18:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since presently notable. There is a huge distance between the intro and the facts on the ground. SIGCOV sources: ESPN article by Daan Sutorius and AD article by Rik Elfrink. These are multiple sources that support notability. Other items that fall short of standalone SIGCOV yet can cumulatively contribute to such (i.e. do not analyze individually!): [106][107][108][109][110][111]. Among these are additional articles by the sports journalist Rik Elfrink. gidonb (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a clear analysis of the sources added?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moriwen, Govvy, Svartner, and GiantSnowman: Courtesy ping, please review the sources presented above. ✗plicit 00:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ESPN article looks good, the other sources are either superficial or paywalled. I still think draftify is the best alternative for now. Svartner (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AD source is great. I did look behind the paywall. gidonb (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. ESPN.nl is hardly an independent source, given their extensive contract and mixed finances with Eredivisie Media & Marketing and direct collaboration with the Eredivisie clubs. Eredivisie Media & Marketing CV was established by the Eredivisie clubs in 2008 to exploit their collective media and sponsorship rights. The company's first major achievement was the launch of the television channel Eredivisie Live, the first owned television channel by clubs in Europe. In 2012, FOX International Channels acquired a majority stake in EMM, and Eredivisie Live was renamed FOX Sports a year later. In 2019, The Walt Disney Company acquired the majority share. Since January 1, 2021, the television channel has been known as ESPN. With just the AD source I think it's reasonable to draftify until further coverage becomes available. JoelleJay (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Flag of Drenthe (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)
Flag of Flevoland (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)
Flag of Groningen (province) (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)
Flag of The Hague (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)
Flag of Weert (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)

North Macedonia

Bryan Greenlee

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

All I was able to find on this basketball player was this interview with the subject and this interview with his parents, which I don't believe warrant a standalone article. JTtheOG (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, North Macedonia, Florida, and Minnesota. JTtheOG (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing sufficient independent SIGCOV to pass WP:NSPORT/WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There appears to be very little coverage of this individual beyond primary sources Garsh (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with work) - May meet notability due to FAU Final Four run. 1. trivial mention. 2. Televion interview. 3. Good source, notable mention. 4. Half discusses career, in short WPTV article. 5. Trivial mention, part of team that went to final 4 and contributed as a player. 6. Trivial mention in indep.article. 7. Interview (uni page)

Wq4m820 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Found some coverage at [[112]], [[113]], and [[114]]. Let'srun (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- 1: team-specific microblog (Owls247.com), author graduated from the same uni in 2023, also just 3 sentences of direct coverage
- 2: routine interview from unreliable source (WP:SPORTSKEEDA), also just 2 sentences of direct coverage
- 3: routine coverage from a reliable source
JTtheOG (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Norway

Adrian Antonsen

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

Non notable filmmaker. WP:BLP1E, Got a little bit of feel good interview coverage (lacking independence) for being young but nothing sustained. Otherwise lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. Smells like UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angeline Kavindu Musili

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

Generally along the lines of WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret M. Otteskov - consensus appears to be that ambassadors are not inherently notable. As for WP:GNG - Most of the sourcing is either non-independent or just mentions subject (i.e. does not cover her in any depth). There are 3 sources that don't appear to mention her at all. I have decent access to Scandinavian papers and speak Swedish so I also looked for any possible WP:SIGCOV there and was not able to find anything besides one mention. The Kenyan award she received, Burning Spear, does not appear to be exceptionally prestigious (she received the third class variety of the second tier order overall, alongside almost 200 ppl) so I'm doubtful if it could confer inherent notability on its own. Zzz plant (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment The consensus has agreed, I understand, that ambassadors are not inherently notable. This is despite Wikidata's consensus that Ambassador is not someone's job, but it is an award. Noting that other people are being mentioned in the rationale above. I note that we have over 100,000 people on Wikipedia who are notable because they were chosen by a town somewhere to kick a ball on their behalf. If they go on to represent their country then they become extra notable...(alongside well over 20,000 others - not 200) as long as they keep kicking a ball then they may be made ambassadors for the UN, leading charities or companies. I feel that the basis of this argument is that "ambassadors are not notable" - which is an idea that has never been proposed or agreed. This person has two national awards - the burning spear and being recognised as a representative of her country by her country and several others. You may not think that the American ambassador to Malawi is not notable - but it makes no sense to ignore the award and recognition that was given to that person when they were appointed. Ambassadors in Malawi are not only appointed by the President but they are grilled by a parliamentary committee to check that they are a notable candidate for the award of this position. Victuallers (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - maybe there's been a misunderstanding, my argument wasn't that "ambassadors are not notable", it was that - based on my current understanding - they don't have presumed or inherent notability, which is why I searched for SIGCOV, attempted to evaluate the burning spear award. and looked into the possibility of a national biography entry. Zzz plant (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I live in the U.S. so my access to information about African diplomats to European countries may be limited compared to, say, people who live geographically closer. Ergo, it interests me greatly to read a Wikipedia biography about an ambassador from Kenya to Finland, Latvia, etc. Notwithstanding the remarks made about quantity and quality of sources found, IMHO, it would be a pity to delete the article and lose the historical facts regarding diplomacy. (I came here because of the deletion notice at Women, but my comment stands regardless of the subject's gender.) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point was that at one point being an ambassador was considered notable, now (I'm told) its not. So it was notable, and its not now. Are we now to discount an ambassadorship completely? That would appear to take a binary approach to a notability decision that this very process shows is loaded with opinion. Surely we should not be looking not for a new argument, but a small piece of evidence to add to the substantial piece of evidence of a national award (ie being made an ambassador). It seems to me that evidence that was once thought to be totally persuasive is now being discounted completely (mistakenly IMO) as no longer relevant. There are several independent sources that record that she has the award of being an ambassador. It is being argued below that "it is not because of the sources in the article." But, there are still several independent sources if we consider ones that support the award of ambassadorship and the other national award. Victuallers (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for sources about her you can check the government website + plus the sources in the article that should be enough for notability FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - the link is published by the Embassy of the Republic of Kenya in Stockholm; that's the organization she represents ( bio is under 'about us'), so it is not an independent source. Zzz plant (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citing WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Unless you think the Republic of Kenya in Stockholm is not reputable.

The other thing, primary source can be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. Which this website does. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with this discussion. You can't use primary sources to show notability. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she is notable, it is not because of the sources in the article - she was one of many award recipients and a BEFORE search brings up little beyond the fact she's an ambassador. It's possible I'm missing something but it doesn't look like there's SIGCOV of her specifically here. SportingFlyer T·C 06:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: First, for those unfamiliar with AFD, please do not only present an argument but your outcome preference in BOLD, your choices are Keep, Delete, Draftify, Redirect or Merge. It really helps a closer as does indicating what policy or guideline supports your argument so it is not just based in your opinion. This usually involves an evaluation of sources in the article or ones you have located. As for ambassadors, I know we delete a lot of their articles, mostly through PRODs but also through the AFD process. Most of the time, the discussions do not get this level of attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Zoo (Norwegian band) (via WP:PROD on 10 May 2025)

Poland

Oskar Piechota

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

Subject has lost 4 of his 5 fights in the UFC, and has been released. According to Fight Matrix, his highest ranked achieved was #48 [115], doesn't appear to meet WP:NMMA. I don't see this article meeting WP:GNG with mostly fights results and passing mentions. Lekkha Moun (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems fine for Basic WP:GNG to me with what whats on the article and pt:Oskar Piechota. Govvy (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote is based on the Polish wiki article? My analysis has only found fight results, fight announcements, profiles, nothing to establish WP:GNG at all. For example, all four MMA Junkie articles are fight results. Please let us know which source you consider independent significant coverage, because I don't see any. Below is my analysis of all 16 Polish wiki sources in order:
- [116]: Figther profile N
- [117] UFC Rankings N
- [118] Fighter profiles N
- [119] Tapology profile N
- [120] UFC profile again N
- [121] fight announcement/passing mention N
- [122] Routine fight result coverage N
- [123] Event announcement N
- [124] Fight result N
- [125] Event announcement N
- [126] Fight result N
- [127] Fight announcement N
- [128] Fight result N
- [129] Fight result N
- [130] UFC 245 Results N
- [131] Sherdog profile N
Passing mentions and event results are not sufficient to meet GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA or WP:ANYBIO. My search of the references in the English article produced essentially the same conclusions as Lekha Moun. I don't see how he meets WP:GNG or any other WP notability criteria. If someone can use WP:THREE and show me how he meets WP:GNG, I will reevaluate my vote. Papaursa (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can't just delete an article because the parameters have now changed for Notability. At the time the article was made, they were required to have 3 fights in the UFC. If you're gonna set the precedent of deleting the article of someone with 6 UFC fights. That means that 85% of all fighters who have fought in the UFC need to have their articles deleted too. Also he didn't lose 4 out of his 5 UFC fights. When he went 2-3 with 1 No Contest.Rickyc123 (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, SNG can be changed at any time by consensus. A few years ago sports notability criteria were significantly changed when participation criteria were removed. In fact, some sports were removed completely from WP:NSPORT. Papaursa (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rickyc123: You can't just delete an article because the parameters have now changed for Notability. – This is actually a very common thing. Notability guidelines are often updated for a reason, and if an article doesn't meet whatever new guidelines are established (or GNG if the SNG is removed), then it's perfectly reasonable to nominate an article for deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The requisite citation to an IRS SIGCOV source has not been identified, and certainly neither has anything approaching GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rynek, Lesser Poland Voivodeship

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

Mass-created article by Kotbot. Name means simply "Market" (or "market square"). In reality, as the Polish article states, the map shows, and Teryt confirms, this is not a settlement but just a part (i.e., część, and not necessarily a populated part) of the village of Brzezówka. Happy to redirect as an ATD. FOARP (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't see a redirecting here given that there are probably multiple potential targets for a "market". Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Right. If you say “I am going to ‘Rynek’” in most Polish cities and towns it will be understood as meaning that you are going to the town square. For this reason redirecting isn’t warranted. FOARP (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It still has an article on pl wiki. I suggest redirecting to the village that the pl article claims this is a part of, Brzezówka, Lesser Poland Voivodeship. If you look at pl:Brzezówka (województwo małopolskie) you'll see it has seven such parts, whatever they are (for a village). Maybe @Malarz.pl can comment or ping some other Polish Wikipedians who know more about Polish geography topics, I keep forgetting who is active in this topic area.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IDK Piotrus, the target isn't mentioned there and just how many "Ryneks" are there in the Lesser Poland Voivodeship? Hundreds surely? Most prominently the main square (Rynek Główny) in Krakow? We don't have to redirect just because there is a PL wiki article. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an entry in TERYT (with SIMC 0830575). There is also an article in the Polish wikipedia. Kiwipete (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TERYT, similar to GNIS for the US, contains entries for many things that are not populated settlements (including farms, railway sidings, warehouses etc.). TERYT lists this as a "part" (część) of Brzezówka, not as a settlement, which is also exactly what the PL Wiki article says it is. Rynek is what you call the typical market-square of any Polish town or city. It is therefore not a populated settlement according to GEOLAND: it is apparently just the centre/market of Brzezówka. FOARP (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, evidently a generic term that could apply to any community in LPV and so a redirect is inapt. JoelleJay (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiesław Lewicki (Normal Country)

AfDs for this article:

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

Very minor Polish politician, never elected to any serious post. Declared intend to run for president twice, which got very little coverage, either. No pl interwiki. Seems to fail WP:NBIO. PS. Article recreated recently following deletion - may qualify for speedy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 11:38, 20 May 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 14:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Please also see here

Portugal

António Serôdio

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

Subject does not have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT. The only source providing non-primary coverage here is [[132]], which only confirms his birth date, and I couldn't find anything better in Portuguese newspapers. Let'srun (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Portugal. Let'srun (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portugal at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Equestrian – Per lack of notability. Svartner (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Thanks to Svarter for suggesting the target link. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dodô (footballer, born 1990)

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

Fails GNG and SPORTCRIT due to his career never getting off the ground, recording mere minutes of play in his many clubs, and lack of significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, Portugal, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – He was runner-up in the J-League with Gamba Osaka, but I didn't find any WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It lucks enough media coverage to shows its notability; but can be kept if the user provide sufficient relevant sources for it ... 110 and 135 (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Berardo

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

Fails WP:BIO. A co-driver in electric car regularity rally events doesn't get much notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sportspeople, Architecture, Motorsport, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails to show WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Fade258 (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:53, 25 May 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.

José Sena

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

Declined prod with this reason: meets WP:NATH #7.

I don't see this person meeting WP:NATH especially as he didn't complete the sole Olympics event he competed in. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Portugal. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE. IRS SIGCOV is needed for all such articles, and yeah, they didn't even finish the race so it seems unlikely that there would ever have been much in the way of coverage. There are a lot of other Jose Sena's out there so I'd caution anyone doing BEFORE work on this to make sure that any references found are about the same Jose Sena. FOARP (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portugal at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics where this person's name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. From the "expanded" article, source 3 is passing mentions in primary race coverage N; 4 is a namecheck N; 5 is a namecheck N; 6 is a namecheck N; 8 is a namecheck N; 9 is passing in primary race coverage N; 13 is a namecheck N; 14 is passing N. No evidence of the required IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portugal at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Svartner and Clariniie: Does the expansion/comments below persuade either of you to advocate "keep"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is one of the better attempts at saving an Olympian stub lately. It shows a path to notability. His claim to notability would not mainly stem from the 1980 Olympics, but from the World Cross Country Championships where he finished 30th in 1980 and 31st in 1982. I have found what looks to be significant coverage about the POC's decision to omit/bypass José Sena at the 1984 Summer Olympics. [133][134] Mind you, I'm not taking any mention as "sigcov". Maybe others would have success in searching portal.arquivos.pt too? Geschichte (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sold on this being SIGCOV: Sena was one of three Portuguese athletes subject to the decision discussed in these articles so it seems unlikely that there would be detail about him. More likely the real story was Portugal at these events, which justifies the redirect (and covering the decision there). Of course, if people can get access to coverage of this decision that could change. FOARP (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean about "the real story was Portugal". It says in plain language that the stories are about 2 and 3 individuals respectively, and this does not seem to me like such a large group that Sena would drown out in the crowd. One story is about the omission itself, the other is about wider repercussions, i.e. a solidarity action from other athletes, showing at least some kind of significance at the time beyond the individual. At the same time, I only said it looks like sigcov, not that it is without having seen the whole articles. Geschichte (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IDK - I’ve not been able to access the specific stories listed here but I’ve read stories about it available from other outlets (eg La Stampa) and they have no SIGCOV of Sena specifically. They focus on the decision of the Portuguese officials to have a higher bar than the IOC and the complaints of the Portuguese athletics team as a whole. I’m not sure these outlets would be much different - the story isn’t about these individuals per se. FOARP (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd believe the Italian newspaper you read it in, has much more second-hand information, and also condensed it considerably because their readers would not be familiar with any of the Portuguese individuals. Domestic newspapers would on the other hand include much more detail; I can't say anything firmly about the sources though. Geschichte (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Diário Popular coverage linked above. --Habst (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the expansion and that we know for a fact he was covered in Diário Popular. We can't access it, but apparently the article, which covered only him and one other subject, was large, given the statement in the records "Newspaper clipping taken from the box with the quotation 00220, cover no. 78B 'Preparation for the Games', due to its size, was found together with other smaller press clippings on the same subject." That is very, very, very likely to be significant coverage. I'll further state that it is not at all reasonable to assume someone like him, whose absence from an Olympics apparently received SIGCOV, would not have additional coverage for any of his numerous world championship appearances, numerous national championships, or his national records. I am entirely certain that a search of relevant newspapers (which has not been done) would reveal abundant extensive coverage. The expanded article, along with the coverage that is guaranteed to exist, is sufficient to keep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portugal at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics - As per FOARPs analysis, the two news reports linked above are not secondary coverage of the athlete. The story is about the Portuguese decision on admission times. We don't need to get into the fact that news reporting is primary and such like, because WP:PAGEDECIDE must be considered, and is too often neglected. There is nothing here showing why a page is merited for this athlete, and all information in the source can be covered in the redirect target - where it would be better placed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way would the several decent paragraphs, containing numerous details such as his clubs, national titles, national records, world championship appearances, etc., be "better placed" at the Portugal at the Olympics article?? A vaguewave at "PAGEDECIDE" doesn't tell us anything, and there is most certainly many things showing here why a page is merited – national titles, national records, world championship appearances...the fact that we are 100% certain he has newspaper coverage – these are all things that are near-certain to have attracted abundant SIGCOV. For any American, of Swiss, or Icelandic (the countries with the best newspaper archives) in this position we'd easily be able to prove GNG for. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  In your !vote above, you say, of the Diário Popular cutting, that we cannot access it but that you believe it is very likely SIGCOV on the page subject because it is apparently larger than the other cuttings. But the article is not about the page subject, it is about the Portuguese Olympic Committee decision, so even if you are correct about its size, it is very much a guess that there is SIGCOV. But also, I am not convinced it is larger than the other shorter cuttings it is found with. It appears to have been collated in a collection of shorter cuttings. Notice that the Portuguese you have translated here is ... outros recortes de imprensa de menor dimensão sobre o mesmo assunto. De menor is indeed the comparative form there, and can be translated as shorter. But it doesn't have to be. De menor dimensão is literally "of minor/lesser size", but is often used as an irregular comparative of pequeno. Yet it is not at all clear to me that it is saying the other clippings are of lesser size than this one. Rather, it says that, owing to its [apparently small] size, it was found amongst other small clippings (other clippings that, like this one, are of lesser size). So no, we have no evidence of SIGCOV there. Everything else is equally speculative. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this analysis. I've been watching this page hoping someone eventually got access to the newspaper articles, but seeing as we still don't actually know the extent of the secondary coverage they give directly to Sena, I don't think it's viable to presume SIGCOV exists. The expansion of the page is also totally irrelevant, as it is entirely from primary databases and thus not inherently encyclopedic material in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I think the consensus is clear, I think this will be contentious so aiming for more eyeballs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - People above are !voting keep based on coverage that they have not read and which is not directly about the subject, but is instead about the decision to bar three athletes from the 1984 Olympics of whom the subject is article is only one. All coverage of the decision not to qualify the three athletes that I have been able to access does not give any of them significant coverage and there is no really reason to believe the Diário Popular would be any different in this. For example the Reuters article on it was only 77 words in total. I do not udnerstand how anyone can say with certainty that SIGCOV for Sena specifically exists in these circumstances. Additionally, WP:PAGEDECIDE means we should redirect in any event, since without SIGCOV that we can access a stand-alone article cannot be maintained. FOARP (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The nation where he is from is much more likely to cover the event in-depth than international wire reports such as Reuters (the fact that international wire reports such as Reuters even covered it strongly indicates it was a notable story in Portugal). The description of the source indicates that it is large as well. "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The description does not indicate that it says anything at all about Sena. The decision being a story doesn’t mean that Sena was a story. FOARP (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Romania

James P Mahon

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

Refbombed promotion for non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Many sources but most are by him instead of about him. A little bit of local interest puff but nothing significant. Awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, Radio, Television, Sports, Ireland, Romania, England, Scotland, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have decided not to make a specific recommendation here. Yet. As, frankly, I wonder if I can leave aside the years of WP:COI and WP:REFBOMB concerns that I've struggled with on this title. And, perhaps, any !vote contribution from me may not be fully objective. However, I have long wondered whether WP:BASIC and WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NACADEMIC are met here. As, IMO, there is limited evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The sources (in the article and seemingly those that are available) are almost all either written by the subject (some about himself and others just things he has written generally), or by entities associated with the subject (university bio profiles, Huffington Post profile, news employer bio, etc), or are just trivial passing mentions. The only three sources, of which the subject is a primary topic and which are could be considered somewhat independent, are the three pieces in the local Clare Champion newspaper (from 2013, 2021 & 2022). And, personally, I'd question whether these are fully independent. Or whether these types of "local boy graduates" stories materially contribute to notability. Any more than this "former co-worker wrote autobiography" piece is strictly independent. Anyway. If I was confident that years of COI/REFBOMB/FV annoyance with this title weren't influencing my recommendation, I'd probably lean "delete". But, being perfectly frank and hopefully somewhat self-aware, I'm not convinced would be an entirely objective recommendation (based entirely on NBIO merit).... Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a tricky one to try and assess. Ultimately I think notability is not there. There is some coverage but is it significant? I think not. Looking at the academic side, I don't think the research and published works are there yet. The awards are non-notable really and as for the references, most are published own works. It almost feels kind of WP:Auto even if it isn't. Coldupnorth (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Junker

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

Article has been orphaned for more than a year; the main subject is of the memorial that never happened, not the person himself. Does not meet WP:BIO LR.127 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Wisconsin. LR.127 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty clear cut application of WP:ONEEVENT here - subject is only notable for a single event that made the news, and all of the coverage of his death focused on that same event. I also don't think the construction of the shrine passes WP:NEVENT, so a page move from Ted Junker to an article about the event is not a viable alternative to deletion. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 16:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One World Radio

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

Advertorialized article about a radio station, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media outlets. As always, radio stations are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but apart from one citation to a music blog that isn't a reliable source (and wouldn't be enough to get this over GNG all by itself even if we did handwave it through), this is otherwise referenced entirely to the station's own self-published content about itself, which is not support for notability at all.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the station from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Belgium, and Romania. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Tomorrowland Take away the PR material and you do not have anything that comes close to an article. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, when suggesting a Redirect or Merge, please provide a direct link to the target article you are recommending. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Reisz

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, Hungary, and Romania. Joeykai (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep. I see 13 sources listed in this article, seven on which appear to be reliable web sites or news sources in Hungarian and German. I'm curious exactly where the nominator searched in a WP:BEFORE. Were non-English language articles searched? Flibirigit (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding much significant coverage of the player in reliable sources. Significant coverage is only in a hockey blog. There is certainly difficulty in searching Hungarian sources, but thus far my search has been unsuccessful.

Here is a quick assessment of the sources in the article (note: I am relying on google translate for these). Not sure if this will change your mind @Flibirigit:

1,4,8,10,11,12 are from a hockey blog and are not reliable

2: About national team, not player. Reisz only mentioned in roster list.

3: Only appears in roster list

5: Routine game coverage mentioning Reisz goal

6: Routine game coverage that mentions Reisz

7: Page not found

9: Behind paywall; most likely source for establishing notability

13: Only appears in roster list

Given there is only one potentially reliable, in-depth source this article should be deleted as it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - found three Hungarian sources [135], [136], and [137]. The last one is tabloidy but the first two seem to be on a legitimate news site. Zzz plant (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Russia

Vladyslav Yakubovskyi

AfDs for this article:

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

Thinking this over, I have got myself to agree with the (probable) sock who nominated this article for deletion previously. Many of the sources cited to not mention this person, or mention him only in passing. It is essentially a coatrack about corruption scandals of entities associated with Yakubovskyi.

And then there is this. It was mentioned in the previous AfD that this article is a translation of the Ukrainian version. So better TNT this problematic BLP and avoid another defamation-lawsuit scandal.

--Janhrach (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Crime, Politics, Russia, and Ukraine. Janhrach (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a LOT to go through, but the sources I checked generally were only very passing mentions, or mentions of his companies. A lot of trivial coverage does not make up one significant coverage. Agree with the nom on the second point as well. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angara Airlines Flight RA-46620

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

Absolutely no notability here at all, this user just seems to be creating articles about anything and has already been warned by others to draftify or submit the article for review but never listened. I don't need to put any links here as its quite clear that this is just an ordinary plane incident that has no business for a wikipedia article. Megabyte21 (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Megabyte21 (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Run-of-the-mill incident, fails WP:EVENTCRIT#4, fails WP:GNG, no likelihood of continuing coverage beyond the initial news cycle, no likelihood of lasting effects. Not encyclopedic, fails the WP:10YEARTEST. Do I need to go on? Rosbif73 (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really anything special. And I don't think the press cared about that incident. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, an obvious delete of a relatively minor accident. Mangoe (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delet, trivial aviation mishap.TheLongTone (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Kalabekov

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, the current tone resembles promotional or advertising language, which is contrary to Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING policies. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, News media, Business, Companies, Management, and Russia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His invention lack independent coverage. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Coverage exists in Russian language. Meets WP:SCHOLAR due to his research and innovations. Kmorsman (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill engineer. WP:NOTFB. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict XV and Russia

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

This article would be better off as simply a subheading of the Diplomatic agenda section of the main article, but merging it does not seem viable because it is simply not up to encyclopedic standards. The talk page reveals possible copyvio issues as well. It appears to be substantially the same as it was in 2009.

If this article is not to be deleted/merged, it would need to be completely rewritten by someone with subject expertise or at least competence. M.A.Spinn (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:V. As written, we can't verify anything. Was this written by a chat bot? It's too much of an essay, and the citation format is unique at best. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or not opposed to draftify to improve the citations issue not being readily verifiable.Lorraine Crane (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a problem with sourcing. There is a lot of synthesis even though the topic is knowledgeable but not encyclopaedic enough. I cannot think about TNT, because this topic does not need an article in the first place. Segaton (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Waves

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

Fails WP:BAND. I couldn't find any SIGCOV in independent sources (both in English and Russian). —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Russia. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheboksary Physics and Mathematics School

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

Article is entirely unreferenced save for a link to what seems to be some sort of a social networking site in the external links section. I could not find any sources in Chuvash or Russian, that were not simply databases or mentions of the subject in passing. As it stands, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Russia. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced and closed means that it is unlikely to be able to be saved. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is unreferenced; there is no sigcov online that I can see; there is no clear path to the article being saved in any way. JacobTheRox (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barabız

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

Article is unclear what this is. Seems like a simple (though incomplete) translation of a foreign word, rather than an actual topic. BEFORE is not finding anything by spelling "Barabız" or "Barabus". ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Russia. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I would say it's loosely notable; I found two sources for historic background ([138] and [139]) plus a source for a namesake location in Kazan ([140]). I only checked google, so there can be more info out there. Also I'm not opposed to merge with Kazan. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding these. Most are repeats of the same short content and single photo. Also doesn't indicate the "service" went beyond Kazan. I think putting the content into Kazan is a good idea. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Khankala (1735)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Battle of Khankala (1735) (2nd nomination)

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

Poorly sourced. The only source used is some book Хожаев, Д. (1998). Чеченец (in Russian). Khozhaev seems to be a Chechen field commander, brigadier general and doesn't seem to be a reliable source, since no degree in history. And I couldn't find the book on the Internet, must be WP:RSSELF. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's first nomination in fact Devlet Geray (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think "Poorly sourced" is in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. More relevant is "articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Has WP:BEFORE been done? I also am dubious that you have to have a degree in history or history books you write will be considered unreliable. It seems that plenty of authors have written histories without a formal degree in that subject (one even got a Nobel prize for theirs). But even in that case, our own article on Dalkhan Khozhaev states "In 1983 he graduated from the faculty of History of the Chechen-Ingush State University" and that he was a researcher at the Chechen-Ingush Republican Regional Museum, the author of works on the history of the national liberation movement of Chechnya in the 19th century and Head of the Archives Department. It seems strange you've copied "Chechen field commander, brigadier general" from the start of our article but chosen to edit that from the full description "Chechen historian, field commander, brigadier general and author with numerous works on the centuries-old confrontation between Chechnya and Russia". Given his publication history, he was an academic and writer before his military service, and continued the former during the latter. The article on the Russian wikipedia has quite a bit more on him and has a number of his books listed. The source used in the article is his 1998 «Чеченцы в Русско-Кавказской войне» (Chechens in the Russo-Caucasian War), published in Grozny by Seda Publishers (isbn and catalogue listing here). That you only suspect he might not be reliable, you assume that the source must be self published, these weren't really strong arguments for deletion without having done a proper WP:BEFORE. And given that these things have been disproven, there's nothing left in the nomination. Spokoyni (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll also further add that Khozhaev's book is not "the only source used", there's another in the article, and a WP:BEFORE would have shown there were originally four sources in the article, two of which the original author later removed on the incorrect rationale that they did not add any additional content to what the other sources stated. Spokoyni (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly wrote that he does not have a degree in history, he is not a specialist in the history of Chechnya (no PhD thesis). How can he be used as a source for a topic like this? Makes absolutely no sence. Moreover, the figures and data presented in the article are initially implausible. In addition, the links are given for show, since it is impossible to verify them. Plus, zero cross-wiki and no information on this "battle" on the Internet, makes the article absoulte original research Devlet Geray (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since none of that makes any sense, suggest speedy keep under "the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion". He has a degree in history, he is a speciality on the history of Chechnya, and if you are suggesting only history books written by those with a phd in history are reliable, you need to go and change the entire nature of what makes a WP:RS. If you mean sources rather than links, they are published accounts and are verfiable (that you personally can't or won't verify them is not an acceptable reason). The absence of articles on other wikis is not a criteria for deletion here, nor is lack of google hits. You tried to get this speedied as a hoax, that was declined. Then you prodded it "because it never happened", and that was declined, and now you're attacking one of the two (out of originally four) sources in the article as a reason for deletion because the book's author doesn't have a phd. I can see your desire to get this deleted for some reason, I'm just not seeing any actual rationale for it. Why do you think this is a hoax, or an invented instance? Spokoyni (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BURDEN, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Devlet Geray (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

‌‌‌‌‌Meanwhile, I found a pdf version of the book «Чеченцы в Русско-Кавказской войне» (Chechens in the Russo-Caucasian War), published in Grozny by Seda Publishers and there is no mention of such a "battle". Devlet Geray (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see anything reliable that tells us this alleged battle ever took place. Mccapra (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Dragonfly

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

Article has been sitting since its creation on 25 October 2023, having not been expanded at all since then. It is about a unique, out of many, Ukrainian strike against Russian forces. The only reason why it could be notable would be for it being the first instance of ATACMS usage by Ukraine in the war, according to the article.

The first results when looking up "Operation Dragonfly" on Google aren't even about the invasion of Ukraine. In five pages of results in Google, I could only find the following sources about this strike: [141] [142] [143].

I could find more sources without using the "Operation Dragonfly" name. [144] [145] [146] [147] [148]. The most recent source is the latter, from 23 October, six days after the strike happened. I do not believe the strike has long-lasting coverage in sources. Simply by reading the article, the strike surely was not nothing, but it doesn't seem worth a Wikipedia article. Super Ψ Dro 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this was a significant event. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect It's true that the article is relatively short and the page might not have merit to exist on its own, but that doesn't mean the content is not worthy to exist at all. It would be better if the information are merged onto a larger page that discusses airstrikes in the war, because this page is certainly not the only one and there are many more similar to this one in Category:Attacks on military installations in Ukraine or Category:Ukrainian airstrikes during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would also prefer this page become a redirect after the merge as it is still the first result after a google search. TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus, @Shwabb1, @NickK, @Aleksandr Grigoryev For discussion TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. Hard to say:

On one hand, this is likely the first ever use of ATACAMS by Ukraine, with significant (from military point of view) result. As such this is a notable enough military operation and it has enough sources.
On the other hand, it is very likely that no further information about this operation will be released until the war ends (for obvious reasons). As a result, this article will likely stay in current state for a while.

I would read this that fundamentally this is a notable military operation, but practically we will not be able to improve this article further for unknown period of time — NickK (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's the case as well. Overall I don't mind the idea of merging this into a larger article that lists major airstrikes including this one, as this article is quite small on its own and, as you've said, we're not getting much more info on it any time soon. Shwabb1 ⟨ta co⟩ 01:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Also, User:TeddyRoosevelt1912, you need to identify a Merge/Redirect target article. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Felix Shpilman

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

absolutely none of the sources are in depth coverage of Shpilman and I can find nothing better about them elsewhere. Might be suitable for a redirect to Emerging Travel Group but certainly there is no notability otherwise, as it's all press releases and passing mentions. COOLIDICAE🕶 19:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Independent, in-depth coverage in major business outlets—The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Business Insider—is complemented by substantial Russian reporting in Коммерсантъ, РБК, and Forbes Russia. Together these sources span 2011-2025, easily satisfying the WP:GNG and WP:BIO depth-of-coverage tests. As long-time CEO of Emerging Travel Group, a multibillion-dollar company, Felix Shpilman is routinely profiled in articles that go far beyond routine announcements. The entry may benefit from routine copy-editing, but the sourcing is plainly sufficient, so deletion is unwarranted. — Pagarizantali (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Independent, in-depth coverage is plentiful: internationally, Wall Street Journal reported on Shpilman’s Start Fund role (2011) and the Ostrovok/ETG investor dispute (2014), Skift ran a strategy deep-dive on Emerging Travel Group (2023), and Fast Company ME profiled RateHawk’s AI work (2025); within Russia he is repeatedly profiled or interviewed in major business media—Forbes Russia travel-sector features, a full-page Kommersant (2018), prime-time segments on RBC TV (2020), and Vedomosti’s investment analyses (2014)—together easily meeting WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Pollia (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Draft

Serbia

Hervé Elame

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

I can't find anything other than quick, passing references in both English and French. There appears to be nothing close to WP:SIGCOV on this player. Anwegmann (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cameroon, Iraq, Qatar, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are way too many players that do not fit this category and they exist on Wikipedia. I am referring to players playing third or fourth level of leagues. Боки 💬 📝 19:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF applies to this argument. WP:SIGCOV is required for an article to pass WP:GNG, regardless of whether or not there are articles that would also fail that same test. Those articles, indeed, should be deleted as well. Anwegmann (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Mirkov

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

According to Soccerway, Mirkov spent his career at lower levels of Serbian football league before playing in Bosnia and Herzegovina for two years. He returned to his homeland to play regional football for OFK Kikinda in 2023, which is far from meeting WP:GNG. The only secondary source I found is a transfer announcement on Kikindski. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are way too many players that do not fit this category and they exist on Wikipedia. I am referring to players playing third or fourth level of leagues. Боки 💬 📝 19:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Clear failure of WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of Smolica

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

Reliable sources don't discuss a "defense of Smolica". This appears to just collect info related to the village during the war and turns into a original research article. The title itself is POV as it implies the militants were defending their rightful territory. Griboski (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Kosovo, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is 99% OR and fiction. — Sadko (words are wind) 11:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The amount of WP:OR is significant. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Other users have already said enough. Боки 💬 📝 19:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Hill

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

I came across this article whilst looking for the YouTube educator. (who apparently doesn't have an article at this time) Asides from a few external links, there appears to be only one source for this biographical article about a basketball player. I suggest draftification unless users performing WP:BEFORE searches can find sufficient sources to expand and rescue this article. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. When I hastily made my nomination, I assumed the article would be held to the same (or similarly high) notability standards as biographical articles for YouTubers like J. J. McCullough, Mr. Beat and Sambucha, and other sportspeople like Armand Biniakounou and Patrick Chiwala. (I don't really care as much about these two, just thought I'd mention them as examples) Nonetheless, I take away the following from this:

Articles on sportspeople are held to some standards, but apparently those standards may not be as high as the standards for articles about influencers. (I might have run with a fallacy here)
If I had wanted to bring other editors' attention to an article, I could've just tagged it as needing "immediate attention", but that can only be done through certain WikiProject banners. In my experience, tagging an article for "immediate attention" on its talk page ironically seems less effective (than an AfD nomination) at drawing a reasonable amount of attention to an article within a reasonable amount of time.

Nonetheless, as an inclusionist, I'd be satisfied to see the article kept. Feel free to close this discussion as speedy keep at any time. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What an incredibly passive-aggressive withdrawal. Rikster2 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Furthermore, there's a delete !vote, so it's not able to be withdrawn anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a solitary reliable source in a biography of a living person, over the course of 17.8 years, does not an article make, nor begin to meet muster for Wikipedia:Notability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick glance at the sources cited in an article, does not a WP:BEFORE search make... or something something. JTtheOG (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Serbia, Spain, Georgia (U.S. state), and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an incredibly lazy nomination that relies on others to do the work on behalf of the nominator. As Hill was a prominent enough basketball player in Europe, I was able to farm [149] [150] from other languages, [151] is a good article and [152] [153] are other sources. Not all of these are SIGCOV but coverage is easily found, and we don't draftify source-deficient articles if the subject is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 01:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another source. [154] Passes WP:NBASKETBALL. Anyone who is selected in an NBA draft is going to have coverage. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like the nominator saw themselves as the person addressed by the text of WP:BEFORE, but that is how we conventionally mean it - you are supposed to do some due diligence before nominating, as opposed to nominating and expecting others to do it. We're all volunteers, and it's fair to expect some investment of time up front given that you expect others to do some investment of time to then double-check that and back you up. Likewise, a lack of {{inline citations}} (and references being merely links) is a cleanup issue, not a reason for deletion. More fundamentally, if the main thing you wanted is an article about the youtuber, just write one at a disambiguated title, like Kyle Hill (YouTuber). --Joy (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by WikiOriginal-9. Rikster2 (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:NBASKETBALL #1, per the sources provided above by SportingFlyer and WikiOriginal-9. The article could use some improvement, but deletion is not cleanup. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBASKETBALL (apparently something meaningful still there).—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Silly nom apparently done in bad faith. I've added SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Trnić

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

Serbian men's footballer who spent his entire career at the lower levels. Corresponding article on the Serbian Wikipedia is slightly longer, but even secondary sources are just passing mentions while the last is an interview without independent analysis, if I could read them correctly. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There is more than 44 sources in sr.wiki article, it's should be checked carefully. Svartner (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep He didn't play his entire career in the lower leagues, in fact he played a good number of games in the second tier. (However Serbian First League is not a fully pro league like it says it is, in fact that league is semi-pro. Which also counts against some notability in my opinion.) I had a look at both articles and a lot of the citations between the two wiki's. I am somewhat confused about the, on loan for five seasons? I thought I read he was on loan for only two and then signed. There are a number of oddities with his career and the sources. Saying all this, with the amount of citations, they are pretty routine and some are really not acceptable in my opinion. However there is a build of them, and that builds up the story, along with it's oddities. I could have easily just said delete however my keep is very weak. Govvy (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (stronger) - the many, many sources on the Serbian page, even though many are short, are exactly what we would expect of a player who is notable in Serbia, as sports news in the area doesn't really do American-style feature stories on players. SportingFlyer T·C 16:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.
1,3,6,9,10,11,14,15,20,22,24,30,32,33,34,37,41,43,45: non-independent N.
2: interview, almost zero secondary coverage N.
4: passing mention N.
5 21: trivial coverage in routine transactional news N.
7: passing mention in quote N.
8 12 13 16: not mentioned N.
17 18 23 24 26 27 28 36 43: name drop N.
19: trivial mention N.
25 31 35 42: passing mention in primary match report N.
29: passing, non-encyclopedic mentions N.
38: passing mention N.
39: teammate's video on YouTube N.
40: primary highlight reel on YouTube, unknown provenance N.
Literally nothing even approaching non-trivial coverage, let alone GNG. The Serbian page is cobbled together from passing mentions and non-independent accounts from his own clubs. I would estimate there are no more than 15 non-quote/interview-based, prose sentences on him across all 25 sources that aren't from the federation/club, and that's even including the ineligible primary match recaps like
Except for before the break, when goalkeeper Trnić and Benjamin collided while chasing the ball, there was no excitement before the goals, which confirmed what the table shows – the inefficiency of both teams.
As soon as the second half started, the guests were left with a player less, the referee showed a red card to goalkeeper Trnić.
Then Admir Kecap entered the scene, who on three occasions had more than a reasonable chance, but Trnić managed to prevent the advantage of the home team.
and routine transactional reports like
Trnić, who is 18 years old, spent the previous season in Partizan's branch Teleoptik.
there is also the youngster Jovan Trnić who is gaining experience in Teleoptik.
the contracts are for three years, and were signed by goalkeepers Jovan Trnić (1996) and Đorđe Vukanić (2000), as well as striker Nikola Nović (2000).
JoelleJay (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely fucked analysis from the most extreme sports deletionist on the website. You are trying to read Western standards into Serbian journalism. Trnić is clearly a notable Serbian football player. SportingFlyer T·C 18:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stadion SC Mladost

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

Reverted redirect, without improvement. Lots of mentions, but searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FK Železničar Pančevo – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Svartner. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 11:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FK Železničar Pančevo I think redirect makes the most sense here. Lacks sufficient RSes to demonstrate notability on its own merits but there is sufficient notability for the redirect I think.

Others

Kenneth Naylor (via WP:PROD on 18 May 2025)

Slovakia

Others

Slovenia

Others

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Spain Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sweden Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Switzerland Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Turkey Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ukraine

United Kingdom

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Yugoslavia

[1] ttps://www.sueddeutsche.de/projekte/artikel/gesellschaft/schneeleopard-fotograf-e865408/

[2] Template:Cite news

[3] Template:Cite news

[4] Template:Cite news

[5] Template:Cite news

[6] Template:Cite book

[7] Template:Cite news

[8] Template:Cite news

[9] Template:Cite news

[1]