Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Two days ago

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.
< June 22 June 24 >

Purge server cache

Moustafa Allozy

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

Declined prod. No SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just participating in the Olympics is not enough for notability, and I see no WP:SIGCOV. GoldRomean (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield, St. Joseph County, Indiana

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

Another South Bend suburban development about which I get nothing except a plat that looks like, well, a suburban development. Mangoe (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect To Warren Township, St. Joseph County, Indiana #Geography where it is mentioned at target (How do I make it more specific? Could someone change it for me to link to and Unincorporated towns, please feel free to edit the target for me, I don't know where the thing is I type to put in) per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage that I could find except for the Census, which is not enough to meet WP:NGEO. GoldRomean (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DXET-TV

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

Same rationale as the 2024 deletion nomination. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. CNMall41 (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough sources in its history, also, none of the sources are from TV5's websites. RandomMe98 (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see press releases and churnalism. Are there any that talk about it in-depth? --CNMall41 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found any in-depth information about recent developments, most of my searches for TV5 Davao even on Rappler are scarce, it doesn't help that Philippine TV is one of my weakest points, the community is heavily reliant on misinformation and also false claims that the station existed before Martial Law, I replaced one of the sources with one from Rappler which covered the same as the previous source, but the problem with the Big 3 networks is the amount of churnalism and shownalism that I find, which is excessive RandomMe98 (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I took a look at the Rapper source and it mentions the parent network (TV5), but not this individual channel. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unfortunately I think I should quit this article, because there is little to no information. Also it doesn't help that local programming is minimal since its beginnings RandomMe98 (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have access (e.g., know a language other than English) to any non-English sourcing by chance? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdcooper, @Ohnoitsjamie, @CNMall41, @Bbb23, @RandomMe98, @Khairul hazim, @ViperSnake151.... Isn't it also a notable and reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic regarding the Philippine TV like this....???!!!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gxcPVBBrJ74 202.67.47.23 (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are scarce, and information is heavily conflictive. Moreover, the callsigns are not used in the Philippine newspaper sources I find RandomMe98 (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie 223.255.224.100 (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WayKurat 223.255.224.100 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Myrabert01, @Vineyard93 223.255.224.100 (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dani1603, @Pratama26 223.255.224.100 (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JacobSanchez295, @Señor verde 223.255.224.100 (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Delete and/or Redirect and Merge into TV5 Network. Trishie042512 (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a mess. (For the record, the ping did not work, so I am only seeing this now.) The problem right now is there is not nearly enough sourcing to sustain this article. This is a source availability problem in large part, as is typical in the Philippines. If a Davao publication were available for the years covered in station history and covered it reasonably well, there could be an article here. But that is not the case. Redirect to TV5 Network. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed El-Tantawy

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

Declined prod. No SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, did not medal and no WP:SIGCOV. GoldRomean (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Dee Davis

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

Delete or Redirect to Bernie Mac Show. The subject notability guideline #1 for entertainers state "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Subject does not have notable roles plural. Her only non-guest role/non-appearance as self is the Bernie Mac Show. Her portfolio of guest roles is also small. She otherwise on IMDB has three guest roles. I will also note that while IMDB is considered generally unreliable (per Wikipedia:IMDB), the roles mentioned in the article do not show up there. A redirect would be a similar outcome as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmy Clarke who had a similar noted for one thing situation of a filmography of one recurring role as a child over a decade ago and no roles since. Mpen320 (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NACTOR she has not appeared in multiple notable films; The Bernie Mac Show from 20 years ago seems to be the only one. GoldRomean (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Abujhmarh clash

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. After a brief period of coverage, this incident was forgotten. There are no sources beyond May. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:

According to WP:NOTNEWS, it discourages documenting every routine or transient news event, this is not one. The article does not summarize daily news, but rather a major event.

Presents lasting consequences, such as shifts in the decades long insurgency, since the leader of Maoists Nambala Keshava Rao was killed in the event, who leaded the group for many years and regarded as tye most wanted maoist in india.

WP:EVENT says that a military or political event may be notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and has broader implications.

The 2025 Abujhmarh clash involves organized armed conflict in a geopolitically sensitive region indicating lasting socio-political relevance beyond simple news reporting.

The clash reflects a pattern of ongoing Maoist insurgency, which is widely documented and considered a national security concern. This establishes enduring encyclopedic interest.

The event also even got analysis from post-event sources establishing that the event has had a sustained impact.

Many military clashes or terror-related events (even with limited source dates) are maintained on Wikipedia because they are part of wider historical and conflict narratives (eg: minor battles in Iraq War, Naxalite incidents in past decades).


Deleting such an article would be inconsistent with established treatment of similar entries like:

2010 Dantewada ambush

2021 Sukma-Bijapur ambush

2013 Naxalite attack in Darbha valley


Artiicles like this exists which may not have a broader implications on the insurgency but the 2025 Abhujmarh Clash, truly have a impact on the insurgency.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whilst the article needs a lot of work, this event is not WP:ROUTINE; it has WP:SIGCOV in many sources. GoldRomean (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Bijapur clash

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

Another routine clash, no lasting effects. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As in a wider perspective, articles that portray mass rebel casualities have been targeted recently for deletion. For example:-
While articles that portray Government casualities or articles that are poorly written or portray less notable events and casualties are kept in wikipedia like:-
The above mentioned articles are of the same insurgency as the 2025 Bijapur clash, many are less notable event than this. Deleting the article will automatically shift the neutrality of wikipedia, with possible portrayal of only Government casualities events and downplaying rebel casualities by deleting those articles. Golem469 (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable event, WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources such as Reuters, The Hindu. GoldRomean (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Kanker clash

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

Non-notable clash. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Oppose:
The Article is part of a wider Naxalite-Maoist insurgency in india which have been ongoing for decades, its a low-level insurgency for past many years so mass casuality events are rare.
Only two articles represent a mass casuality event in the insurgency in the whole year of 2024 one is above mentioned and the other being 2024 Abujhmarh clash, so it not just a regular news and the event have been reported by Foreign media outlets, which is rare.
From a wider perspective, articles that represent mass casualities of the maoist rebels have been targeted for deletion recently. Eg:-
It is part of a larger operation ongoing since 2024 to end the insurgency by March 2026.
While articles which portray Government casualities have been left out from deletion even though they are underdeveloped and represent less casuality events like
Deleting this article and leaving out the others will shift the neutrality of the Insurgency, with possible downplaying rebel casualities and highlighting government casualities observed for wikipedia viewers. Golem469 (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more participation and evaluation of sources here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 23 June 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Martti Järventaus

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

Declined prod. No SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Finland. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • See here: "He was Finland's best breaststroke swimmer from 1978 to 1986. He won a total of 41 Finnish championships, 29 of which were in individual breaststroke, 11 in relays and one in the 200-meter individual medley. He broke the Finnish breaststroke record several times." Cited to the book Urheilukunnamme sööttäänjat – Suomen olympiaedustajat 1906–2000. That is a very strong indication of notability. SIGCOV is in Finnish newspaper archives. Have those been searched? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't speak Finnish. Unless you understand it? It's a very difficult language. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have no understanding of Finnish or how to search for sources on Finnish topics, you should not be nominating for deletion articles on extremely accomplished (freaking 40+ national championships...) Finnish people. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is ludicrous. One of the most ridiculous things I've heard in 18 years on Wikipedia. There is no ban on people nominating articles for deletion because they don't speak their language. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say you need to be a fluent speaker, but you should be able to search Finnish-language sources. If someone isn't able to properly look for sources on some near-certain notable subjects, why should they be nominating them for deletion? BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable. The Finnish Wikipedia article is based off the book Urheilukunniamme puolustajat – Suomen olympiaedustajat 1906–2000 (Defenders of our sporting honor – Finland's Olympic representatives 1906–2000) and describes him as Finland's best breaststroke swimmer for a decade, a national record holder and someone who won freaking 41 national championships. He still gets mentioned briefly today, e.g. ~100 words in this book ("...Lappeenranta Swimmers was one of the most successful swimming clubs in Finland in the 1980s, with Martti Järventaus as its brightest star...") and here and here, though the last is paywalled so I can't tell the extent of the coverage. He is also apparently covered here per Google Books, but the source is offline. It does not appear that any Finnish newspapers have been searched, but it is exceedingly clear that he would have been covered significantly in them based on his accomplishments. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per BeanieFan's quick book search that indicates SIGCOV. Kingsif (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm pretty sure he got his 3 articles in somewhere along the line if he won 41 national titles...KatoKungLee (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see WP:SIGCOV by secondary WP:RS, supporting the article subjects notability per GNG. ZachH007 (talk) 02:54, 25 June 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.

Aapa Shameem

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

YouTube series that fails notability guidelines. Sourcing is unreliable or social media links. Twice decliend at AfC and an attempted move back to draftspace as an WP:ATD was obejcted to by creator. CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the AfC reviewers @Gheus: and @WikiMentor01: who declined the draft previously. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Being a publisher of the article, wants to correct certain points mentioned by nominator as rationale for deletion.
  1. It is not a You Tube series. It was aired on a national broadcast network, confirmed here by DAWN as network and its air time is mentioned right next to its title.
  2. There is not a single social media link presented as a reference in the article. Also, sources mentioned such as DAWN, The Nation, Samaa TV, Independent Urdu, The Express Tribune, BizAsiaLive (UK-based TV ratings), and ARY News, all are editorially independent platforms with established reputations, satisfying the requirements of WP:RS.

Now addressing the WP:GNG and WP:NENT, a television program is considered notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple published sources that are independent of both the subject and each other. The sources listed covers Aapa Shameem from several perspectives regarding its casting, thematic depth, audience reactions, debut performances (Zoha Tauqeer is the main lead of the show and makes her debut with the show, therefore, few sources emphasizes on her specifically), and overall reception. Notably, DAWN’s critical column “The Tube” and The Express Tribune’s YouTube trend (as serial is uploaded on You Tube by the broadcast network official channel) analysis offer analytical content, not just superficial mentions or press releases. These types of coverage meet the threshold for non-trivial, secondary analysis. More over, presented below are the sources covering the show significantly and are indepedent of the subject.

  1. South Asia - The article is published in a regional magazine which highlights the plot, cast and broadcast details of the show.
  2. [Independent Urdu - Here the article is in local language and title of the source is translated as "Aapa Shameem: Good for few and Bad for the others". Independent Urdu is the Pakistani variant for the british The Independent.
  3. DAWN - Gives an insight of the show confirming the broadcast and theme of the show. Not just a trivial mention.

Like mentioned above there are other sources besides them as well which makes the article notable in context of WP:GNG and WP:NENT.Reshmaaaa (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis table would be useful at this point in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Polish farmers' protests

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

Non-notable protests, fails WP:NOTNEWS. No significant coverage beyond 2024 and virtually no impact. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: First of all it is a part of the wider 2023–2024 European Union farmers' protests, which was notable event during the time it reported, it was the first time a protest arose from the allies of ukraine during the Russo-Ukranian War. The event was widely reported as poland had border with ukraine and mainly discussed in notable news reports.
The Event marks a turning point marking discontent in public opinion of poland in helping ukraine.
The 2023–2024 European Union farmers' protests includes the articles like 2024 French farmers' protests, 2023–2024 German farmers' protests and the Dutch farmers' protests while these articles are kept and deleting the 2024 Polish farmers' protests would be unjustifiable as all belongs to the Same major event and protest in poland had major impact than others in the event. Golem469 (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per Golem469 Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Planet

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

Suspect WP:UCOI, related to Smilegate. Smilegate has had a series of single-purpose accounts engage in likely COI on the English Wikipedia in recent months [3]. This user is just one in a pattern of COI editing. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Checking, because it wasn't identified, is Smilegate the proposed Redirect target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly Contino

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

Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Coverage is tied to a two incidents, not enough for lasting notability—see WP:BLP1E. Sources are mostly local news or advocacy stuff, not deep or independent enough per WP:RS. Her gaming and social media gigs don’t get serious attention in solid outlets. Delete or redirect. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions.
  • Comment not that I'm moved one way or the other yet, but surely Coverage is tied to a couple incidents (emphasis added; nom changed 'couple' to 'two' after I posted this comment) and WP:BLP1E are contradictory, no? (see WP:BLP2E) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEONing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Respectfully — no. That’s exactly the point. WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP2E exist to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a permanent record for individuals only known due to a small number of controversies or viral moments. The subject of this article is not independently notable — the “coverage” amounts to reactionary media commentary about the incidents, not about her as a person in any substantive or sustained way.
    We’re not talking about someone with a career, long-term recognition, or encyclopedic significance. We’re talking about fleeting media attention tied to drama. “A couple incidents” is literally the textbook definition of BLP1E, and trying to twist that into a justification for notability is a dangerous precedent.
    Wikipedia is not a tabloid. It’s not a diary of internet virality. And it sure as hell isn’t here to eternally memorialize people for 15 minutes of controversial fame. If the coverage dies with the event, so should the article. Per policy, this should be deleted.
    — End of story. Momentoftrue (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)#[reply]
WP:BLUDGEONing, with added WP:CIV considerations. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • The Toronto Sun article cited (“NO LONGER FEEL SAFE”) is another incident-focused tabloid-style piece. It doesn’t provide in-depth or sustained coverage of Contino’s career. The academic analysis cited (a speech acts paper) is not journalistic coverage and is hosted on ResearchGate, which is user-contributed and generally not considered a reliable secondary source for establishing notability.
    There is no significant, independent, and reliable secondary source coverage that discusses the subject in detail beyond viral moments. Lacks the depth required to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Delete. Momentoftrue (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEONing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • With respect, that interpretation stretches WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG beyond their intent. This isn’t about counting events — the core issue is quality and depth of coverage, not just quantity.
    The Toronto Sun piece is incident-driven, reactive, and tabloid-style — it doesn’t offer any sustained analysis of Contino as a public figure. The ResearchGate article is academic, not independent journalistic coverage, and is hosted on a user-upload platform, not a recognized mainstream publisher. Neither source meets the standard for significant, independent, and reliable secondary coverage as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO.
    While “life is now a series of viral moments,” Wikipedia’s inclusion standards haven’t changed: viral ≠ notable. Two viral events with no in-depth profile or sustained coverage don’t override WP:BLP1E — which still applies where coverage is narrowly event-focused and fails to establish enduring notability.
    We’re not here to build permanent encyclopedic entries from fleeting internet controversies. If a subject’s only enduring relevance is through misgendering incidents that go viral, that’s precisely the kind of situation WP:BLP1E warns against.

Additionally, viral incidents—even when notable events—do not automatically justify an independent article. Often, these topics are better suited to be covered within broader articles or merged elsewhere, to avoid creating pages based primarily on fleeting internet attention.

  • Comment. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. After reviewing all sources, there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most references are either incident-only (triggering WP:BLP1E), promotional, or do not meet reliability standards. Here's a breakdown:
  • WeWork.com – Corporate blog; not independent, not reliable, no significant coverage.
  • PocketGamer.biz – Interview published while subject worked at Ryu Games; borderline source, promotional tone, fails independence.
  • GameDeveloper.com – Author profile, not coverage about the subject. Not independent or significant.
  • 48 Hills – Local alternative outlet; mildly reliable but not in-depth or sustained coverage. Does not establish notability.
  • CBS News, The Hill, Advocate, KRON4, Daily Dot, LGBTQ Nation – All focus on one of two viral incidents (either the Cheesecake Factory confrontation or the Crown & Crumpet livestream hoax). These are WP:BLP1E events and do not provide broader notability or career-spanning coverage.

In short, there is no meaningful coverage establishing lasting notability beyond two viral moments. Subject does not meet inclusion criteria under notability guidelines. Momentoftrue (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This article was created by User:Willthacheerleader18, who has created a number of similar articles on internet personalities. A current example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katelyn MacDonald, which is also under AfD discussion due to concerns related to WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. The pattern of creating biographies based on recent or viral incidents — rather than long-term, significant coverage in reliable sources — raises questions about whether these articles meet inclusion standards. This does not reflect on the subjects themselves, but highlights the need to apply Wikipedia’s notability criteria consistently. Momentoftrue (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I created the article (and was surprised to find I was not given notice about it's nomination for deletion.. so thank you for mentioning me here!). I have written a number of articles on TikTokers, as a member of the WikiProject TikTok. I created MacDonald's article this year, and Contino's article last year, while participating in LGBTQ+ edit-a-thons created by WikiProject Women in Red. I do not have a strong opinion either way whether or not this article is deleted. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Response: Thank you for clarifying your role and intentions. However, Wikipedia’s inclusion standards must be applied impartially, regardless of how an article was created or the good-faith motivations behind edit-a-thons. Here are the critical points:
      1. 1. Intentions Don’t Override Notability Policy  
      Participation in WikiProject TikTok or Women in Red and enthusiasm for representation are commendable, but they cannot bypass WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON. An article’s merit rests entirely on whether independent, reliable sources provide substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject beyond fleeting viral moments.
      1. 2. Coverage Remains Event-Driven and Shallow  
      As previously noted, nearly all reliable coverage of Lilly Contino is tied to two similar viral incidents (Cheesecake Factory misgendering, Crown & Crumpet prank). These produce short news briefs or opinion-style blog posts, not long-form journalistic profiles or analytical features that treat Contino as a figure of lasting significance. This pattern fails the “substantial coverage” threshold required by WP:NPERSON and WP:SIGCOV.
      1. 3. BLP1E Applies Squarely  
      WP:BLP1E exists to prevent standalone biographies based solely on a small number of events. Even if multiple events occurred, they are of the same nature—viral controversies without broader context or ongoing achievements. Creating multiple similar articles in edit-a-thons magnifies this issue rather than resolving it. The policy warns precisely against this: a subject known only for episodic viral attention does not warrant a permanent entry.
      1. 4. Independence and Reliability of Sources  
      Many sources are local or advocacy-leaning, or retell the same incidents across outlets. There is no evidence of independent, investigative coverage of Contino’s career (e.g., video game writing, lasting impact as a critic). Academic papers on speech acts do not count as independent journalistic coverage establishing notability. Promotional interviews and author profiles likewise fail to establish notability under WP:RS.
      1. 5. Precedent and Consistency  
      Allowing this article to remain simply because it was created via an edit-a-thon sets a dangerous precedent: any viral figure with minimal coverage could be added en masse during events, swelling Wikipedia with entries lacking true encyclopedic value. Consistency demands that we apply notability criteria uniformly, regardless of how articles originate.
      1. 6. Neutrality and Good Faith  
      This response is not an attack on contributors or on efforts to improve representation. It is a strict application of policy: if the topic doesn’t meet the standards, the article should be deleted or redirected. Good faith editing still requires adherence to notability and reliable sourcing.
      Conclusion: Despite the effort and intentions behind its creation, the Lilly Contino article does not satisfy Wikipedia’s notability requirements. The sources reflect fleeting viral incidents rather than sustained, in-depth coverage of lasting impact. Therefore, the article must be deleted (or at most redirected into a broader topic).   Momentoftrue (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was entirely unnecessary to type out as I am not arguing for keeping the article. I did not claim that intentions override policy, nor did I suggest any argument against any claims you've made. I created the articles because I believed them to pass WP:GNG. If you feel that is not the case, totally fine by me. As I stated, I am not voting on this. Please save your lecture for someone else. And next time please remember that You should notify the article's creator or other significant contributors by adding a tag or other appropriate text to contributor talk pages. -- Willthacheerleader18
Understood — and to be clear, my reply wasn’t about your vote (or lack thereof), but about clarifying the notability issues tied to article creation patterns that keep recurring at AfD, especially when they lean on borderline WP:GNG interpretations for recent viral figures.

As for the notification, fair point — I’ve since followed up accordingly. But let’s not pretend context doesn’t matter here. When an article’s inclusion is based on passing GNG through incident-driven press, it’s absolutely relevant to examine how those assumptions play out across similar cases.

This isn’t personal — it’s procedural. If the article doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, then discussing the basis for its creation is part of the AfD process, whether someone casts a !vote or not. Momentoftrue (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nomination discussion for one article, not a discussion about patterns with AfD nominations and rationales. Furthermore, that point could/should have been made in your original nomination, not by berating the article creator who, other than acknowledging that this nomination exists, was not taking part in the nomination discussion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If pointing out policy violations and systemic patterns that are clearly influencing article creation is “berating,” then maybe the issue isn’t the tone — it’s that the critique hit a nerve.

Let’s be real: this article wasn’t created organically based on strong SIGCOV. It was drafted in the middle of an edit-a-thon with a political advocacy goal in mind — your own words confirm this. That’s not just relevant context; it’s a red flag under WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:POVFORK. When coverage is shallow, event-driven, and duplicated across multiple bios, and those bios are systematically produced during representation-focused drives, then yes — it's absolutely fair to raise this *within* an AfD.

This *is* about one article, but it’s also about how it came to exist — and that’s entirely valid to scrutinize. If the same sourcing pattern (brief viral news, no depth, no sustained independent attention) keeps surfacing, and if those articles are being batch-produced in advocacy-driven sprints, then AfD isn’t the wrong place to raise that. It’s *the exact right place*. Pretending otherwise is a convenient way to deflect from policy, not defend it.

No one’s questioning your good faith or motivations. But let’s stop pretending good intentions immunize content from policy scrutiny. Wikipedia has inclusion standards for a reason, and editorial accountability doesn’t get suspended because the subject is part of a social justice campaign.

You’re welcome to disengage from the discussion, but you don’t get to dictate what parts of the sourcing and editorial history are “appropriate” to analyze. This isn’t a personal attack. It’s a necessary look at a growing pattern that’s diluting the encyclopedia with biographies that do not meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, or WP:BLP1E. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read through Wikipedia:Civility before you continuing engaging with other editors. "political advocacy goal in mind — your own words confirm this", Oh really? Which words of mine confirm that I created this article with a "political advocacy goal" in mind? What "social justice campaign" am I supposedly a part of? Are you claiming that writing about queer people, or women in general, ,must always be from a mindset of political advocacy? Is writing about men then? People of color? You've been notified various times in this discussion by other editors and now I shall remind you again, don't bludgeon the process. And don't make accusations against other editors. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s clear something up right now — no one said that writing about queer people, women, or any marginalized group is inherently political. That’s a mischaracterization, and frankly, a deflection.

What was said — and what I stand by — is that creating multiple articles during themed edit-a-thons focused on identity, without ensuring those subjects meet core notability criteria, creates an appearance (key word: appearance) of prioritizing representation over encyclopedic standards. That’s not an accusation — that’s pattern recognition based on edit history and stated affiliations. If that observation makes you uncomfortable, maybe the focus should be on ensuring the articles can withstand scrutiny, not on painting valid criticism as “uncivil.”

As for “bludgeoning,” let’s stop misusing that word. This is a content discussion, not a vibe check. If several keep !votes repeat the same flawed reasoning — such as mistaking fleeting, incident-driven media coverage for lasting notability — then yes, those points get addressed. That’s not bludgeoning. That’s defending the integrity of Wikipedia’s standards. You don’t get to cry “bludgeon” every time someone challenges your rationale with actual policy.

And if you truly believe raising concerns about how and why biographies are being added — especially when notability is marginal — counts as a personal attack, then you may need to re-read WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:DISPUTE, and WP:OWN. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed I am using Wikipedia for advocacy when I have not. You claimed that I was politically motivated, which I am not. You are calling into question my integrity as an editor, which is not what is in question here in this nomination discussion. I am not deflecting, I am reminding you to behave properly in a deletion discussion, which you have completely disregarded. Need I remind you that Wikipedia is not a battleground nor is it about winning. Behave accordingly. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep invoking civility and decorum, yet you’re mischaracterizing legitimate scrutiny of editing patterns and policy compliance as a personal attack — that’s not how AfD works. This is not about your personal integrity, and if you perceive it that way, that’s a problem of framing — not of conduct.
Let’s be precise: I raised concerns tied to article creation patterns during themed edit-a-thons that repeatedly intersect with borderline notability. That’s not a reflection on you as a person; it’s a reflection on editorial outcomes. If pointing out that trend feels accusatory, perhaps it’s because it surfaces a discomfort with what the policies actually require — WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPERSON — and how they’re being tested here.
Wikipedia isn’t a battleground — but it’s also not a sanctuary for unexamined assumptions. Discussions like these are exactly where hard policy distinctions must be made. Not based on who created the article, but on whether its inclusion dilutes the encyclopedic value we’re all here to preserve.
So let’s not pretend civility is violated when someone demands rigor. No one accused you of “being politically motivated” — I described how repeated contributions centered on identity topics during advocacy-themed edit events can resemble a political project if not checked against policy. That’s a structural critique, not a personal one. If you believe there’s no tension between that pattern and notability, you’re free to argue that — on policy grounds, not moral outrage.
This isn’t about winning. It’s about whether we, as editors, are willing to say that good faith alone doesn’t entitle an article to survive if the subject lacks durable, independent coverage. If that’s uncomfortable, it’s not incivility. It’s the encyclopedia doing what it’s meant to do. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s clear something up right now- you are not behaving civilly. You have made your point a hundred times. Frankly, I'm tired of this spam. Good day. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If calling policy-based critique “spam” is the only way you can disengage from legitimate scrutiny, that says more about the strength of your position than mine. Repeating a point isn’t uncivil — especially when the point remains unaddressed. What is uncivil is trying to shut down a contributor by declaring exhaustion instead of responding with policy.
Let’s be clear: Wikipedia is not governed by vibes or by who gets tired first. It’s governed by content policies — WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E — and those remain at the center of this discussion. If you’re “tired” of seeing them cited, perhaps it’s because they’re inconvenient to the outcome you’re hoping for.
Calling this “spam” is rhetorical deflection. This isn’t Reddit. This is a deletion discussion. The process demands rigor — not emotional fatigue, not personal offense, and certainly not a premature exit masked as moral high ground.
You said “good day.” Wikipedia says “see it through.” Momentoftrue (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Critique is not spam. Berating every person who offers a different opinion regarding policy or validity of an article (which I did not, mind you) with paragraphs of text reiterating the same information over and over again is, in fact, spam. I never claimed that "Wikipedia is not governed by vibes or by who gets tired first", so why you feel the need to berate me about such matters is beyond me. I am very tired of engaging with you, regardless. What "outcome" am I "hoping for"? I clearly stated multiple times that I have no strong feelings about this discussion. I am fine with the article being kept or deleted. Good grief. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No — what you call “spam” is persistence. What you call “berating” is the repetition of unrefuted facts. What you call “paragraphs” is called argumentation, and it’s the backbone of AfD — not a nuisance to be hand-waved when inconvenient.
You’ve now pivoted from misrepresenting my position to mischaracterizing the very function of this process. Let’s break it down:
“Berating every person who offers a different opinion…”
Except you haven’t offered a different opinion. You explicitly said you’re not voting to keep the article. So what you’re objecting to isn’t disagreement — it’s discomfort with scrutiny. You object not because the arguments are wrong, but because they’re relentless. That’s not “spam.” That’s called consistency — and it’s what happens when policy is applied without bending to personal sentiment.
“Reiterating the same information over and over again…”
Yes. Because the same violations are recurring — and they remain unaddressed. Policy doesn’t change because someone grows weary of hearing it. If repetition makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps consider how often editors have had to cite WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, and WP:NOTNEWS just to hold the line.
“Critique is not spam…”
Then you should know: policy-backed critique that challenges systemic patterns is the most vital form of critique Wikipedia has. It’s not noise — it’s friction. It’s how we stop this encyclopedia from becoming a reaction blog fueled by viral moments and advocacy-driven creation. This isn’t about you. It’s not about me. It’s about the integrity of the project.
You say “good day.” I say: this is AfD — not a coffee shop. If you don’t like long responses, you’re in the wrong venue. Because Wikipedia, unlike social media, doesn’t reward brevity over substance. And if the truth is long, it will be typed — again and again — until it’s finally read. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Enough. This argument has gone far past the topic of whether to keep or delete Lilly Contino and the entire debate is flooded with walls of text reiterating the same points over and over. The conversation is being bludgeoned to death at this point. Cool off and keep future conversation here civil and concise Taffer😊💬(she/they) 20:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No.
Enough is when policy has been upheld, not when discomfort reaches a boiling point.
Let’s be perfectly clear: this isn’t “bludgeoning.” This is holding the line when attempts at dilution, derailment, and passive-aggressive tone-shaming try to drown out legitimate critique with cries of exhaustion. If the conversation feels “flooded,” it’s because the policies being ignored are ocean-deep — and defending this project from erosion demands we swim in it.
You say this has gone “far past” the topic. I disagree. It is precisely on topic when the creation of an article represents not an isolated lapse, but part of a broader pattern: one that sidesteps WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, and WP:BLP1E through emotional appeal, surface-level coverage, and the insulation of assumed good intent. That pattern must be interrogated.
Let’s not pretend that length is the enemy here — vagueness is.
Let’s not pretend that repetition is the crime — silence in the face of failed sourcing is.
Conciseness is not a virtue when it’s used to truncate scrutiny.
Civility is not a shield when it’s deployed selectively to protect comfort over policy.
You may call it “bludgeoning” — but I call it the inevitable result of an unwillingness to engage the actual argument.
If a point has to be repeated, it’s because it keeps getting deflected, minimized, or ignored.
So no — I won’t “cool off.” I wasn’t heated. I was focused.
And I will remain focused until every last ounce of this article — and others built on similar quicksand — is measured not by emotion or exhaustion, but by notability, sourcing, and the rules that make Wikipedia what it is.
The temperature of the conversation doesn’t matter.
The strength of the argument does. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Critique isn’t spam — you’re right. But when critique is met with defensiveness masquerading as detachment, don’t expect silence in return. You entered this discussion. You participated. Now you want to cry exhaustion when confronted with a full, unblinking analysis of your contributions? That’s not “being tired.” That’s dodging.
You say you haven’t argued for the article.
You say you don’t care what happens.
You say you’re “tired.”
But here you are — again — investing more energy into tone-policing responses than addressing a single actual policy cited.
“Berating every person who offers a different opinion…”
Except you haven’t offered a policy-based “opinion” at all. You’ve offered affect — exhaustion, disengagement, performative neutrality — and expected that to insulate you from pushback. It doesn’t.
“With paragraphs of text…”
That’s called argumentation. If you wanted Twitter threads and emoji reactions, you’re on the wrong site. Wikipedia’s foundation is deliberate, sourced, structured reasoning. The fact that the arguments are long doesn’t make them spam — it makes them thorough. And maybe that’s the problem: this process doesn’t bend to who gets “tired” first.
You’ve now made this about your personal feelings of fatigue, when the core issue is one you still refuse to address: a repeated pattern of creating articles about individuals based solely on viral incidents, with no sustained, significant coverage. That’s not just a content problem — it’s a systemic notability failure.
“What outcome am I hoping for?”
Let’s stop playing coy. The pattern is clear. A string of articles created through the same methodology, relying on borderline sources, timed to advocacy-driven edit-a-thons. Whether you “feel strongly” or not doesn’t change the effect: it dilutes Wikipedia’s standards. That’s not an opinion — that’s policy enforcement.
So no — this isn’t about “good grief.” This is about good policy.
And if citing WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV with full analysis is now called “berating,” then maybe the real issue is that the arguments aren’t wrong — just uncomfortable.
Wikipedia is not governed by who runs out of patience first.
And if that makes you tired, then step back.
But don’t mistake persistence for hostility — it’s simply what happens when someone refuses to let the rules get buried beneath feelings. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay on topic. As I stated before, I am not voting in this discussion. I merely joined to acknowledge that I saw the discussion was going on, since you neglected to follow the proper protocol by alerting me on my talk page. Since then, I've merely been responding to your accusations towards me, which are not relevant to the discussion at hand. This discussion is for reaching consensus on whether or not the subject is notable. I recuse myself from this, as I have no strong opinion on the matter. Good luck to you all, I hope consensus can be reached with civility. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledging the discussion and then claiming detachment doesn’t exempt you from scrutiny — especially when the article under review is your creation and your name has become a recurring presence across multiple similarly situated deletions. You don’t get to step back into neutrality midstream while simultaneously framing every correction of record as a personal “accusation.”
Let’s dissect that mask of recusal a little closer.
You say you’re “not voting.” Noted.
But what you are doing is trying to redirect every policy-based critique of article pattern creation into a conversation about tone, intent, or imagined incivility — as if that shields content from evaluation.
You say you’re “just responding.”
But what you’re doing is engaging in repeated attempts to minimize legitimate scrutiny, frame persistence as “accusatory,” and posture as a neutral party while actively shaping the thread’s atmosphere with passive-aggressive signaling.
Let’s remember:
WP:BEHAVIOR applies to how we create and defend content.
WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTABILITY don’t pause just because the article was created in good faith.
And WP:CONSENSUS is not just about whether editors feel tired — it’s about policy-aligned outcomes.
I don’t fault you for creating the article. I fault the consistent use of surface-level, event-driven sourcing under the veneer of representation — and the refusal to engage when that pattern is critically examined.
So yes, I will stay on topic: the article’s notability, and the broader editorial behavior enabling similar articles to repeatedly slip through cracks. Your “recusal” may work as a rhetorical posture — but policy doesn’t recuse you just because you say “good luck” and bow out with a soft close.
Facts don’t care whether you choose to participate.
The record does. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go back and read through the above text and you will see that not once have I argued or disagreed with you over policy. What I have said is that you've already made your point multiple times. You appear to be trying to pick fights, not reach a resolution. Furthermore, I have not disagreed with you on whether or not the subject is notable. So this entire conversation is not necessary for the end goal of reaching consensus on what to do with the article. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempt to deflect by clinging to the claim that you “never disagreed over policy” is precisely the kind of rhetorical sleight of hand that is the problem. It’s not just about open disagreement — it’s about how one participates, or pretends not to, while subtly shifting the terrain from content to conduct, from substance to tone, and from facts to feelings.
Let’s be clear:
You don’t need to say “I disagree with WP:GNG” to erode its standards. You do it by consistently creating borderline articles based on viral incidents, then distancing yourself when scrutiny arrives — all while trying to control the tone of the conversation and framing any criticism of editorial patterns as “picking fights.”
You say this isn’t about “reaching consensus”?
On the contrary — this is about ensuring that consensus isn’t derailed by surface-level recusal and soft deflections. Repetition isn’t the issue; pattern-recognition is. When the same names, same justifications, and same shallow sourcing return again and again, they require repetition because the problem is repeating itself.
You created the article.
You failed to notify yourself.
You entered the thread under the banner of neutrality.
You responded multiple times, escalating tension and framing detailed critiques as personal attacks — then claimed fatigue to sidestep further engagement.
That isn’t neutral.
That’s performative disengagement wrapped in bureaucratic politeness.
And it actively undermines the AfD process.
This nomination was never just about one article. It’s about patterns that dodge notability thresholds by leaning on thin sourcing, then attempt to gaslight critics into silence under the weight of exhaustion or “civility” when those patterns are called out.
So no — this conversation is necessary.
Because Wikipedia’s editorial integrity depends on calling this out in public, in detail, with diffs, policy, and a record that can’t be handwaved away with “good grief” or a polite exit.
If you don’t want to engage — then don’t.
But don’t act like calling out an entrenched editorial behavior is a sideshow.
This is the main event. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just it. This nomination is just about one article. That's how AfD works. If you are concerned about my editing, this is not the place to call it in to question. This is the space to determine whether or not the article on Lilly Contino should be deleted. Feel free to file a report on me at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or one of the other noticeboards, if that is what you take issue with. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s be perfectly clear:
What’s truly disruptive here is not policy critique — it’s the coordinated deflection from those who repeatedly present borderline articles, then weaponize civility guidelines the moment those patterns are scrutinized.
You say this isn’t the place to “call into question” someone’s editing? That’s flatly incorrect. AfD is precisely the place to examine how and why articles are being created — especially when multiple, nearly identical biographies are submitted under similar conditions and sourcing failures. See WP:DELREASON and WP:NOTABILITY — context and creation matter. If the same editor continues producing marginal articles rooted in fleeting viral incidents, it’s not “casting aspersions” to point that out. It’s enforcing standards.
The irony here is suffocating:
You create an article.
You don’t notify yourself of its nomination — violating AfD protocol.
You enter the discussion not to !vote, but to continuously post, reactively, to every mention — all while insisting you “have no strong opinion.”
Then, when your editing pattern is critiqued in the exact venue where it is relevant, you cry incivility and redirect the conversation to noticeboards?
That isn’t disengagement — that’s manipulation.
And Taffer:
The idea that repetition weakens an argument is laughable in the face of systemic problems. You counted twenty iterations? That should raise alarms — not about me, but about how often these same issues arise, across articles, across editors, across AfD after AfD.
The issue here isn’t tone. It’s accountability.
Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria are not optional. And when patterns emerge that exploit gray areas of notability and then hide behind etiquette, it becomes necessary to repeat, to reinforce, to resist the erasure of hard policy under a flood of soft pushback.
This is not a battleground.
It’s a defense line — against the quiet erosion of standards dressed up as polite disengagement.
If that offends anyone more than seeing notability diluted over and over again, they’re not defending Wikipedia. They’re defending their comfort. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is dangerously close to casting aspersions and is entirely uncivil behavior. I'm saying this as respectfully as I can as the third person you're now bludgeoning out of this discussion(I'm removing this page from my watchlist after I reply): drop the stick, you've reiterated some of your points more than twenty times(I counted) in this discussion, particularly against people who were not arguing against them. You don't need to(and in fact explicitly shouldn't) argue with every single reply made that you perceive as disagreement. It's not only disruptive but weakens how your arguments are received. Taffer😊💬(she/they) 21:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s be perfectly clear:
What’s truly disruptive here is not policy critique — it’s the coordinated deflection from those who repeatedly present borderline articles, then weaponize civility guidelines the moment those patterns are scrutinized.
You say this isn’t the place to “call into question” someone’s editing? That’s flatly incorrect. AfD is precisely the place to examine how and why articles are being created — especially when multiple, nearly identical biographies are submitted under similar conditions and sourcing failures. See WP:DELREASON and WP:NOTABILITY — context and creation matter. If the same editor continues producing marginal articles rooted in fleeting viral incidents, it’s not “casting aspersions” to point that out. It’s enforcing standards.
The irony here is suffocating:
You create an article.
You don’t notify yourself of its nomination — violating AfD protocol.
You enter the discussion not to !vote, but to continuously post, reactively, to every mention — all while insisting you “have no strong opinion.”
Then, when your editing pattern is critiqued in the exact venue where it is relevant, you cry incivility and redirect the conversation to noticeboards?
That isn’t disengagement — that’s manipulation.
And Taffer:
The idea that repetition weakens an argument is laughable in the face of systemic problems. You counted twenty iterations? That should raise alarms — not about me, but about how often these same issues arise, across articles, across editors, across AfD after AfD.
The issue here isn’t tone. It’s accountability.
Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria are not optional. And when patterns emerge that exploit gray areas of notability and then hide behind etiquette, it becomes necessary to repeat, to reinforce, to resist the erasure of hard policy under a flood of soft pushback.
This is not a battleground.
It’s a defense line — against the quiet erosion of standards dressed up as polite disengagement.
If that offends anyone more than seeing notability diluted over and over again, they’re not defending Wikipedia. They’re defending their comfort. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A reminder that follower counts and social media popularity do not, on their own, establish notability per WP:NUMBERG. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. In this case, while the subject has over 400k followers on TikTok, the sources largely revolve around two incidents and do not reflect the kind of in-depth, career-spanning coverage needed to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Momentoftrue (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I want to be clear that I fully support and respect all genders and sexual orientations—trans, gay, lesbian, straight, and everyone else. My position here isn’t biased against anyone’s identity. Personally, one of my favorite trans media stars is Dylan Mulvaney, who I think has made a strong impact. However, after reviewing the coverage, I believe that Lilly Contino, sadly, does not meet Wikipedia’s notability standards to have a dedicated article at this time. Momentoftrue (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEONing, with added AI-generated walls of text. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Rebuttal: This argument completely misrepresents what constitutes notability under WP:NPERSON and misapplies WP:BLP1E in a way that ignores the spirit of both policies.
    Let’s rip this open properly:
    1. “Broad Coverage” Is a Mirage — It's the Same Story, Copy-Pasted
    Multiple articles parroting the same two viral moments (Crown & Crumpet, Cheesecake Factory) isn’t breadth — it’s repetition. Nearly all coverage is just variations of "Internet reacts to viral TikTok." It’s event-based noise, not significant secondary analysis. This is textbook WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS territory.
    2. NPERSON? Absolutely Not.
    WP:NPERSON requires significant (i.e., in-depth), independent, and sustained coverage. There are no long-form profiles. No editorial insights. No coverage of her game dev career. No notable accolades. Just TikTok recaps and callouts. This fails the bar miserably. You could swap in any influencer’s name and the articles wouldn’t change.
    3. BLP1E Was Written For Situations Like This
    Contino’s notability is entirely derived from two misgendering incidents — and the "multiple events" defense fails because those events are nearly identical in nature and covered the same way. This is precisely what WP:BLP1E warns about: temporary notoriety from viral outrage cycles, not lasting, encyclopedic significance. She is known because of the reaction, not for enduring achievements.
    4. This Is a Manufactured Biographical Article
    Let’s not pretend this is organic coverage. It was created during an edit-a-thon tied to a political initiative (as admitted by the article’s creator). That’s not a neutral reason for inclusion — that’s a Wikipedia:NOTADVOCACY violation waiting to happen. The project goals are noble, but the sources must still pass GNG and SIGCOV, and this one simply doesn’t.
    5. This Article's Existence Undermines Wikipedia’s Standards
    If we keep this, we send the message that anyone who goes viral twice—regardless of depth, career, or recognition—gets a Wikipedia page. That’s a dangerous precedent, and it floods the project with bios that hinge entirely on fleeting controversy, violating WP:NOT and weakening trust in the platform.
  • Bottom Line: DELETE.
    - Not significant coverage.
    - Not broad.
    - Not lasting.
    - Entirely event-driven.
    - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, and absolutely meets WP:BLP1E criteria.
    Wikipedia is not a mirror for TikTok trends. This subject can be mentioned in coverage of the incidents themselves, but does not merit a standalone article. Delete.
    – Momentoftrue (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have strong enough opinions about keeping or deleting, but I would like to gently draw your attention to WP:BLUDGEON. You've made your point, repeatedly dissecting every keep vote isn't helpful. Taffer😊💬(she/they) 16:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully noted. However, engaging with arguments presented in a deletion discussion is entirely within the bounds of WP:AFDPURPOSE. This is not “bludgeoning,” it’s addressing flawed logic and misapplications of policy. If a “keep” !vote contains reasoning based on a misinterpretation of WP:BLP1E or WP:NPERSON, it should be scrutinized. That’s how consensus is built — through critical analysis, not silence Momentoftrue (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You should be capable of responding to any new points raised without the WP:WALLOFTEXT mainly restating points that you have already made, several times over, because what you posted above does also seem WP:BLUDGEONy to me too. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The responses are pretty clearly AI generated, which is frowned on. @Momentoftrue, AI tends to be excessively verbose, consider summarizing its points in your own words instead. Taffer😊💬(she/they) 17:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, that’s a reach. Just because something is thorough, well-formatted, and cites policy accurately doesn’t mean it’s AI-generated — it means it’s serious about deletion. The issue shouldn’t be how points are delivered, but whether they’re grounded in policy — and mine are.
    If clarity and consistency are getting mistaken for AI, maybe the bar for deletion arguments needs to be raised — not dismissed.
    Let’s focus on the content, not the style. Momentoftrue (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you — but reiterating policy isn’t WP:BLUDGEON when editors continue misapplying it. This isn’t about “restating” for the sake of it — it’s clarifying misuse of notability guidelines that risk setting a precedent for hosting articles built on temporary outrage and media flares, not long-term significance.
    If multiple keep !votes continue to ignore WP:BLP1E by conflating coverage of incidents with coverage of the person, then yes — it deserves correction, every time.
    You say don’t post walls? Cool. Then let’s be real clear:
    She’s known because of the incidents, not in spite of them. That’s BLP1E. This article doesn’t belong.
    Clean. Sharp. Policy-backed. No apologies. Momentoftrue (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is you've made your case and we all pretty much understand your interpretation of policy. Something important to remember is that people can reasonably disagree with you on questions of policy, and that doesn't necessarily mean they're misapplying it. Nor, if your right, does it mean its helpful to your case to to keep stating your point of view in response to each keep comment. If their arguments are so obviously fallacious and yours so obviously enlightened, the closer will be able to figure that out.
    And because I can't help my self: incidents, not in spite of them. That’s BLP1E No, incidents (emphasis added) would suggest more than one event i.e. not covered by WP:BLP1E. There's no such thing as WP:BLP2E. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate the reminder, but let’s not act like a firm stance is the same thing as being disruptive. I’m not here to hand-hold every Keep vote when many are restating the same vague rationale or ignoring core notability policy. This isn’t about ego — it’s about consistency in applying WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E, which are being stretched to fit a narrative here.
    And to your “can’t help myself” moment: no one said WP:BLP2E exists — that’s your strawman. What was actually pointed out is that coverage across multiple incidents doesn’t automatically sidestep BLP1E when those incidents are minor, viral bursts lacking lasting, independent significance. That’s a textbook misunderstanding of what WP:BLP1E protects against — superficial fame being confused with encyclopedic relevance.
    I’m not here to bludgeon — I’m here to make sure deletion-worthy articles don’t slip through because folks got too comfortable confusing press coverage with policy-based notability. Momentoftrue (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    coverage across multiple incidents doesn’t automatically sidestep BLP1E If they are covered for more than one event, as far as I can see based on what is written at WP:BLP1E, then they definitionally do pass WP:BLP1E. Of course, passing BLP1E says absolutely nothing about passing GNG/NOPAGE but it's actually not BLP1E primary job to to protect against [...] superficial fame being confused with encyclopedic relevance. Pehaps you where thinking of WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re treating multiple incidents as an automatic override of WP:BLP1E, but that’s not what BLP1E says — nor how it’s historically applied. BLP1E is fundamentally about protecting living subjects from being reduced to a series of isolated or tabloid-level events that do not, individually or collectively, constitute lasting encyclopedic notability. The bar isn’t just more than one event — it’s about the depth, independence, and enduring relevance of those events.
    We don’t carve out encyclopedia pages just because a subject had two viral moments. That’s not notability — that’s noise. And that’s exactly what BLP1E safeguards against.
    Even if you technically satisfy the “more than one incident” phrasing, if those incidents are interconnected, fleeting, or sensationalist by nature, then you’re still within the spirit of what BLP1E aims to exclude. That’s why this clause exists: to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a digital scrapbook of controversies.
    And yes, while WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP support the same principle, BLP1E goes further — it’s not just about editorial discretion; it’s a living person safeguard. We’re talking about reputation protection, not just notability enforcement.
    So to clarify:
    BLP1E does not get invalidated simply because two events happened — not when those events are closely tied in theme, source, or moment (i.e., coverage collapsing into a single notability arc).
    The presence of multiple news stories doesn’t automatically form a valid GNG case if they stem from echo chambers of non-independent, event-centric reporting.
    Applying BLP1E is about the spirit of policy, not just a literal count of media incidents.
    Wikipedia is not a viral hall of fame, and not every name trending for a month deserves to be canonized in an encyclopedia. Momentoftrue (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, so when you previously said you were reiterating policy with arguments that were Clean[,] Sharp [and] Policy-backed, while accusing others of continue misapplying it and parroting vague rationale, you weren't referring to the policies as they are actually written but instead the spirit of policy and what you recon it's aims should be. See I was going off what these PaGs actually said, my mistake. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for raising this point. Wikipedia policy interpretation involves reading the literal text of guidelines and also considering the broader intent and context in which they are applied. Policy pages often give concise criteria, but explanations, examples, and precedents clarify how those criteria work in practice.
    For instance, BLP1E warns against standalone biographies based on a few events without deeper coverage. It mentions more than one event, but it must be understood in context: the events need to reflect lasting, independent significance. Treating any count above one as sufficient ignores explanatory guidance and how BLP1E has been applied in deletion discussions.
    Literal reading of policy requires awareness of examples and precedents. In practice, multiple brief news items covering essentially the same controversy do not amount to the substantial coverage envisioned by GNG or BLP1E. Saying that coverage across multiple incidents does not automatically sidestep BLP1E reflects established application, not a subjective override.
    The key issue is distinguishing between a literal count of events and substantive coverage. If multiple incidents are interconnected, fleeting, or sensationalist, they do not collectively support lasting notability. This interpretation aligns with the policy’s intent to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a scrapbook of controversies rather than an encyclopedia of enduring significance.
    Referring to the purpose of policy helps avoid misapplication. Every guideline aims to ensure Wikipedia covers subjects of lasting interest, not ephemeral trends. Understanding that purpose is standard practice: policy interpretation relies on literal text, linked guidance, community consensus, and documented rationale.
    AfD discussions exist precisely for detailed scrutiny. Addressing misunderstandings of policy is appropriate to clarify for new editors and the closer. It is not WP:BLUDGEON if each reply corrects a misreading or adds nuance. This ensures that GNG, NPERSON, and BLP1E are applied correctly as measures of substantive, independent, and lasting coverage, not merely a count of mentions. Treating any “more than one” mention as sufficient would undermine policy intent. Therefore, it is necessary to address each misinterpretation to maintain proper application of guidelines.
    Momentoftrue (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One would think it's quite difficult to have a misreading of policy when apparently we don't even need to read what the actual words of a policy says, but instead can imagine would they should be. I happen to think would think it would help your case to refer to the PaGs that do actually say the things your trying to say (such as WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, or in fact the rest of WP:BLP, which is about defending people from gossip).
    I don't intend to respond any further to this thread, as its clear we have fundamentally different understandings of what a policy based discussion is. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    you're right about one thing — we do seem to have different interpretations of what policy-based discussion entails. But for clarity: I’m not advocating we ignore policy wording. I’m saying we apply it *in context*, as intended, not just literally.
    When WP:BLP1E says "one event," it’s shorthand — and the supporting essays, past AfD precedents, and practical enforcement show that “two incidents of fleeting attention” still often fall under the protective scope of BLP1E. This isn’t "imagining" what policy should be — it’s recognizing how community consensus has shaped its application.
    Yes, WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and the rest of WP:BLP all matter — and I’ve cited or echoed each of them throughout. But WP:POLICY is not a vending machine. You can’t drop in a citation and expect an automatic Keep. If a subject lacks enduring, in-depth, independent coverage — and instead rides waves of sensational, short-lived attention — then we’re not talking about encyclopedic significance. We’re talking about transient noise.
    Policy without practical interpretation is useless. Wikipedia is built on words *and* consensus. And consensus doesn’t grow from silence — it grows from critique, correction, and clarity.
    If we disagree on that, then yes — we’re speaking different languages. But one of us is still speaking Wikipedia’s. Momentoftrue (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider stating the points of your argument in the nomination itself, instead of waiting for people to reply and dropping your argument directly below theirs. At this point, you have made more than half of the comments on this page, making it hard to read and resulting in points being restated again and again. There's nothing wrong with editing the nomination to update your argument, and it's much more helpful for people joining the discussion later. See also WP:TLDR. Thank you. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 18:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the concern, but let’s not conflate participation with disruption. This is a contentious AfD — not a vote count — and each “Keep” rationale that misrepresents policy warrants a precise, context-aware reply. That’s not WP:BLUDGEON — that’s due diligence. I’m engaging substantively and specifically, not restating or padding. If multiple editors make parallel policy misreadings, it’s entirely valid to address each one in turn.
    As for the nomination: AfD is not static. WP:AFDPURPOSE encourages iterative debate, and policy consensus often sharpens in response to how arguments evolve — not in a vacuum. I’ve expanded on the rationale through replies, just like others have clarified theirs across multiple comments. This isn’t TL;DR — it’s transparency.
    And let’s be honest: if an article’s survival hinges on misapplied BLP1E logic, misunderstood GNG claims, or event-linked echo-chamber sourcing, it deserves thorough scrutiny — not a polished summary followed by silence.
    If clarity is the goal, I’d be happy to consolidate and annotate key points. But I won’t step back from challenging flawed keep rationales when policy is on the line — especially with a living subject. Momentoftrue (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to agree with @PYRiTEmonark.. this has become very difficult to read and instead of making a clear point you have berated other people in the discussion by making the same points over and over again. I am not sure why you consider this discussion contentious.. I don't see any more "contention" than on any other deletion discussion I've been a part of. Please be sure to read through Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Behavior when nominating an article for deletion, which states: The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. Individuals will express strong opinions and may even "vote". To the extent that voting occurs, the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not. Please do not "spam" the discussion with the same comment multiple times. Make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves. Thanks. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s dispense with the performance of concern and get to the truth beneath the etiquette: this is not about tone, or density, or how many times I’ve replied. This is about editorial discomfort with rigorous, policy-grounded scrutiny — the kind that threatens weak “Keep” rationales built on fleeting virality, notability inflation, and uncritical repetition of GNG fallacies.
If policy were being cited accurately, you wouldn’t be reading so many replies from me — but you are, because time and again, I’ve seen arguments that misstate, flatten, or ignore WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NPERSON. That’s not a coincidence. That’s a pattern, and if anyone’s tired of seeing it called out, they should be far more tired of seeing it happen.
You quote Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and accuse me of violating its norms. Read deeper:
“Make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves.”
That’s exactly what I’ve done — with policy diffs, with case law precedent, with sourcing analysis. I haven’t copy-pasted one comment twenty times. I’ve offered individualized critiques to individual misreadings — and that distinction is everything. Responding to multiple editors is not equivalent to repeating myself.
You say this AfD isn’t “contentious.” No offense, but I’m not interested in how it feels — I’m looking at what’s on the page:
Editors accusing others of political motives.
Subjectivity presented as sourcing analysis.
Claims of neutrality while defending article creation patterns with no regard for long-term significance.
Dog-piling the one person applying BLP1E with surgical clarity.
That’s contentious. That’s politicized. That’s why I won’t default to quietude just to make the page easier to skim.
And let’s talk about “spamming.”
A 500-word wall of vague sentiment is spam.
A thread of 20 replies that each dissect a unique policy error? That’s editorial service.
If clarity is desired, then let’s reframe the situation properly:
I will always respect good-faith disagreement grounded in policy.
I will never stand down when notability criteria are repeatedly diluted through event-driven sourcing and apathy toward living subjects.
And I will not be silenced through weaponized civility, especially by those who invoke “guidelines” only when their position gets challenged too effectively.
You want a cleaner discussion? Then apply policy accurately the first time.
Because until that happens, I will continue speaking — clearly, repeatedly, and unapologetically: Momentoftrue (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "I'm right and your all wrong" over and over, louder and louder is unlikely to win you anybody to your point of view and is a waste of digital ink frankly. While its very nice that you feel so metaphysically WP:CORRECT in your idea, you are actively failing to communicate them to others, which is the point of this discussion. Multiple people have told you your bludgeoning, and failing to Assume good faith and yet your just failing to WP:LISTEN to anybody (even to the tamest criticism). At some point you have to WP:DROPTHESTICK Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s dead this real quick — if holding people accountable to policy feels like “saying I’m right and you’re all wrong,” then maybe that’s because the policy is right… and y’all are just mad it doesn’t fold to groupthink.
This isn’t me shouting louder. This is me refusing to sugarcoat how badly notability is being bent just to keep an article that wouldn’t survive two seconds outside of an echo chamber.
You call it “bludgeoning”? Nah. I call it precision fire. Every single response I dropped was targeted, relevant, and anchored in policy. I’m not here to coddle misinterpretations or vibe with “consensus” built on shaky logic and feelings. This ain’t a support group — it’s Wikipedia, and what’s at stake is a BLP about a living person, not your comfort.
“You’re not listening.”
Bruh, I read every line and countered with receipts. Just because you don’t like the reply doesn’t mean I didn’t listen — it means I didn’t bend.
“You’re just repeating yourself.”
You’re right. Because some folks keep repeating bad takes, so I’ll keep countering them with the same unshakable facts. We don’t let errors slide just because someone’s tired. You don’t get to shout “drop the stick” when I’m still seeing people picking it up and swinging it wrong.
You want “civil”? Be civil with policy. Respect the process enough to argue correctly, not softly.
You want me to stop? Then stop misapplying notability guidelines like they’re fanfiction rules. Until then, I’ll keep pulling up. I don’t play nice with policies that protect real people — I play correct.
This ain’t WP:BITE. It’s WP:BITE BACK — when bad arguments try to outlive good policy.
Now save your digital ink. I brought receipts, not feelings. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your not holding people accountable because this isn't a court of law nor is this the place to raise conduct concerns, that's WP:AN/WP:ANI/etc. And perhaps clicking on WP:LISTEN would show you that I wasn't saying you weren't reading. I don't doubt your reading all of this but you aren't listening to what people are telling you. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep tossing out “WP:LISTEN” like it’s a shield, but here’s the thing: WP:LISTEN doesn’t mean submit. It doesn’t mean I have to nod along when consensus gets cozy with contradiction. It means I engage. And I have — line by line, source by source, argument by argument. I didn’t dodge a single point. I ripped them open, cited policy, and showed my work.
And now you’re shifting goalposts — saying this isn’t a courtroom? Right, it’s not. But don’t twist that to mean there’s no accountability. Wikipedia doesn’t run on vibes and “we’re tired now.” It runs on verifiability, due process, and community standards. If those are being misapplied, calling it out is participation — not misconduct.
“You’re not holding people accountable.”
I’m not dragging people. I’m holding up policy like a mirror — if the reflection’s ugly, that’s not on me.
“This isn’t the place to raise conduct concerns.”
You’re damn right — and I didn’t. What I did was respond when folks tried to paint good-faith critique as “bludgeoning,” which is code for: “stop being loud with facts, you’re making us uncomfortable.” That ain’t a conduct concern — that’s a silencing tactic, and I won’t bite my tongue for anyone’s digital comfort.
If policy is being misread, warped, or ignored, I’m pulling up. And no — I won’t do it gently, because the subject at hand is a real, living person whose notability is being papered over with puff, not substance. This ain’t just about an article — it’s about the bar we set for inclusion, and whether we let it slide when it feels socially convenient.
You don’t gotta like my tone. You don’t have to agree with the heat. But you will respect the foundation it stands on: policy, precedent, and protecting the project.
So unless you’re ready to actually dispute the arguments with clarity and citations, this whole “you’re too intense” angle is just noise — and we don’t do noise. We do facts. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you've already told us how you're the only one that understands policy, can understand logic and the rest of us are just misunderstanding/misreading/misinterpreting PaGs that may or may not actually exist on the policy pages that you link to (or in fact anywhere, they may just be there in spirit). May I recommend some WP:BRIE to pair. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 23:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s cut the sarcasm and dress this down to the bones — because I see the play:
When you can’t counter the policy, you go after the person.
“You think you’re the only one who gets it.”
Nah. What I am doing is standing firm in the face of a dozen shaky takes trying to pass as consensus.
But you’re right about one thing:
I do know the difference between policy applied and policy waved around like a glowstick at a rave.
So miss me with the passive jabs — “PaGs that may or may not actually exist”? C’mon. That’s not wit, that’s deflection. You’re not disproving anything — you’re hoping the crowd laughs loud enough to drown out the receipts I brought to the table.
You wanna recommend WP:BRIE?
Cool. Here’s my edit:
BRIE: Be concise — unless you’re trying to untangle a mess of half-baked arguments dressed up as policy, in which case clarity > brevity every time.
Don’t like the length? Don’t misapply policy.
Don’t like the tone? Don’t mock someone doing the work.
Don’t like the heat? Then step out the kitchen, because I didn’t come here to vibe-check feelings — I came to make sure a BLP doesn’t get waved through on smiles and misunderstanding.
“They may just be there in spirit.”
Nah. They’re there in black and white.
WP:GNG. WP:BLP1E. WP:SIGCOV. WP:RS. WP:NEXIST.
Pick one. Or better yet — read one, without the spin.
This isn’t a TED Talk. It’s a deletion discussion.
And if that means making sure each “Keep” vote gets actual scrutiny instead of a group nod? Then yeah — I’ll be “that editor” every time.
So keep tossing jokes if that helps you cope.
But policy doesn’t laugh — and I don’t blink. Momentoftrue (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep (might as well get back on topic here), The topic is covered in multiple reliable sources that cover the subject of the article (i.e. WP:NBIO). These include WP:THEHILL, The Advocate, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 391#LGBTQ Nation, WP:CBS, Pocket Gamer. These cover multiple events and seem to pass WP:BLP1E per my reading of the actual policy (not an imagined version only viewable in my head; see above for context). It's week because I do think its close to the edge and lots of it is passing. I actually think (unlike some it seems) it's reasonable to disagree with this reading of the sources. P.S. I'm unlikely to respond to a bludgeoning wall of text under this, so feel free to save it unless you have something new to add. Many thanks, in advance. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEONing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Let’s be crystal clear: You don’t get to swing in with a “Weak keep”, cite a bundle of barely-there coverage, then duck behind a polite “I probably won’t respond” and expect your take to go unchecked. Nah. You tossed a match in a dry forest and now it’s time to deal with the blaze.
    You say these sources “cover multiple events”? False. They echo the same viral incident and do it through a limited lens. This isn’t WP:NBIO — it’s WP:1EVENT in disguise, trying to wear a press badge like armor.
    The Hill? Syndicated reprint with no original reporting.
    The Advocate? Advocacy journalism with a narrow frame and minimal depth.
    Pocket Gamer? That’s niche industry commentary, not biographical substance.
    CBS? Local affiliate regurgitating the same incident like the rest.
    We not cherry-picking logos here. Notability isn’t a sticker collection. You need depth, independent insight, and substantial coverage — not a stack of reactive headlines off one event thread. Per WP:GNG, passing coverage must build a narrative beyond a single flashpoint. This ain’t that.
    Now let’s talk BLP1E: This person is only in the news because of one isolated controversy. Not a career, not a body of work, not sustained relevance — just an algorithmic moment. And if we’re really upholding Wikipedia’s values, we don’t preserve pages built on the backs of virality alone, especially when it risks long-term harm to a living subject without lasting notability.
    “Might as well get back on topic.”
    Then let’s stay on topic, and the topic is not who feels warm fuzzies from visibility, it’s whether this article meets the threshold for inclusion. It doesn’t.
    And finally — if you don’t want “a wall of text,” maybe don’t build a wall of shallow logic and expect people not to knock it down. This ain’t bludgeoning — it’s surgical teardown of a weak argument hiding behind fake neutrality.
    Don’t confuse verbosity with rigor. I brought both. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let’s be crystal clear: You don’t get to swing in with a “Weak keep”, cite a bundle of barely-there coverage, then duck behind a polite “I probably won’t respond” and expect your take to go unchecked. No actually, I can and I will, thanks. It's not actually up to you how other people WP:!vote and nobody has to run anything past you for approval. This will be closed in ~6 days by an uninvolved closser (who'll have to wade through this mess). I trust them to separate the wheat-discussion from the chaff-bludgeon. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me return the favor with equal clarity:
    You can say “I can and I will” all you want — but when that “will” is propped up by flimsy sourcing and a disclaimer that you’re too checked out to defend it, don’t be shocked when someone does check it.
    This ain’t about who’s allowed to WP:!vote — it’s about whether that vote means anything when it leans on misunderstood policy, shallow sourcing, and a “don’t @ me” energy. If you drop a take into a public, policy-driven discussion, you invited scrutiny. And if your sources don’t hold up? Expect someone to say so. Loudly.
    “Nobody has to run anything past you for approval.”
    Cool. Nobody said they did.
    But if you step into an AfD and toss in weak rationale, don’t act brand new when someone holds it under a microscope. That’s not gatekeeping — that’s quality control, and it’s the backbone of this whole project.
    And about that closer?
    Yeah, I trust them too — to cut through the feel-good “keep” takes that crumple under GNG or BLP1E. To see the difference between good-faith diligence and what y’all are calling “bludgeoning” just because I’m not folding.
    So no — this ain’t about me needing your permission.
    It’s about you not getting a pass when your vote comes wrapped in weak policy and a warning label that says “won’t engage further.”
    Because guess what?
    Wikipedia isn’t a safehouse for bad arguments.
    It’s a platform that lives and dies by evidence, policy, and the will to enforce them — no matter how “messy” that gets.
    So go ahead.
    Drop the “weak keep.”
    Mute the thread.
    But don’t confuse silence with strength — I’ll still be here, dissecting every claim, line by line, while the real consensus builds around the truth — not convenience. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I do not like these sources as many of them are blatantly transphobic in their reporting (regardless of how one feels about Contino and her actions, which are not the focus of this discussion). However, they appear to all be credible sources according to Wikipedia guidelines, so I thought I would add them here. If someone else wants to add them into the article, please feel free to. If they do not appear reliable, then please disregard.
-- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added these to the article talk page, though the WP:IBTIMES and WP:DISTRACTIFY links were quickly removed, the rest seem reliable enough from a very cursory glance. I lack the interest in incorporating them into the article myself(nor do I have the stomach to read that transphobia, my god), but perhaps another editor will be able to make use of them. Taffer😊💬(she/they) 17:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you for doing that! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEONing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The sources being offered in this AfD are not reliable. They’re barely sources at all. Every link cited—International Business Times, Distractify, National World, Florida’s Voice, P-Magazine—they’re not independent, in-depth journalistic outlets. They are shallow content farms, tabloids, or politically biased blogs, trafficking in ragebait and recycling the same surface-level controversy. There is no meaningful original reporting, no sustained coverage of a career, no exploration of significance, and no biographical depth. These are not WP:RS-compliant sources. They are digital mirrors reflecting the same viral moment. That’s it.
Wikipedia’s general notability guideline (WP:GNG) is crystal clear: significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Not a few throwaway articles echoing Twitter drama. Not reactionary posts exploiting culture war tension. Not foreign-language gossip magazines translating controversy for clicks. Real notability is proven with depth, substance, and multiplicity. This has none of that. What’s being presented is a hollow loop of exposure—not evidence of lasting importance.
This article exists because of a single viral backlash tied to a one-time incident. That is textbook WP:BLP1E territory. Wikipedia does not exist to document every person who went viral once and caused outrage. That’s not biography. That’s spectacle. Encyclopedias do not serve outrage cycles. They record lasting relevance. There is no long-term significance here, no follow-up trajectory, no transformation of public conversation that warrants preservation in an encyclopedia. There’s no book, no movement, no platform beyond short-term TikTok fame. Once the algorithms move on, there’s nothing left.
And let’s be absolutely clear: throwing procedural notices like “this was tagged under WikiProject USA” or “Authors” or “A&E Biography” does not prove notability. That’s just process. It’s internal housekeeping. It doesn’t validate the topic. It doesn’t magically elevate a gossip piece into reliable coverage. Stop treating basic template tagging as if it establishes merit. It doesn’t.
What we are looking at is not a person with an encyclopedic footprint—it’s a page built on the back of virality, controversy, and digital rage. A house of cards held together by screenshots and bad headlines. There’s no framework of notability underneath it. There’s no reason for this article to remain. It doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s minimum threshold for existence.
And on top of all this, let’s not ignore what’s really happening. Most of the coverage is hostile, inflammatory, and borderline or overtly transphobic. Wikipedia’s policies on living people (WP:BLP) and neutrality demand exceptional care, not reckless documentation of online mobs. The subject is not notable. But even if she were, the weight and tone of this coverage would still make inclusion dangerous and unethical. Wikipedia is not a vessel for channeling outrage into permanent record. It must be responsible with how it treats real people’s lives. This article is not responsible. It is not ethical. It is not encyclopedic.
This is deletion beyond reasonable doubt. Every standard—GNG, BLP1E, RS, NOTNEWS, NPOV, TOOSOON—is being violated. This is not a close call. It is not a gray area. This page should be gone, fully, cleanly, and without delay. No redirect. No merge. Just delete. Momentoftrue (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Momentoftrue. It's clear that you have misunderstood what the notices "WikiProject USA”, “Authors”, and “A&E Biography” are for. Especially as you directed this, again, at me, when I have made no argument for keeping this article. I don't care if it gets deleted, but I do care about clear discussion and consensus being reached. These discussion inclusions are not to establish notability nor validity. They are notices showing that this deletion conversation has been added to their topics pages because those topics are relevant to the deletion subject. It's simply to encourage more people to engage in the conversation (whether for or against deletion). Contino is American, hence this discussion being included in the List of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Contino is a video game writer, hence being included in the List of Authors-related deletion discussions. Continio is a content creator/social media personality, hence the notfication to WikiProject Biography A&E Taskforce. None of this is done as a way to try and "prove notability" nor is it done as a way to "validate the topic". As you can see, earlier on this discussion was also included in internet-related deletion discussions and biography-related deletion discussions, as both are also applicable. Hope this helps clear up any confusion you have on how deletion discussions work. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating that these WikiProject tags are “just notifications” as if that somehow matters. The problem isn’t that anyone thinks they prove notability — the problem is they’re being dropped in bulk to pad this AfD with a false sense of legitimacy. It’s distraction, plain and simple. Tagging a bunch of projects does nothing to change the fact that this article has zero significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per WP:GNG.
Contino being American, a writer, or an influencer means absolutely nothing without notable coverage to back it up. This is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E: a one-time controversy endlessly recycled through tabloid sources, not lasting significance. No deep reporting. No career overview. No impact documented by reliable outlets. That’s the actual issue here — not how AfD banners are used.
So instead of doubling down on procedural noise, let’s keep the focus on what matters: this article doesn’t meet the notability bar and needs to be deleted.
Momentoftrue (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear you don't understand what inclusion in deletion discussions is for. Please re-read what I stated above. I am not arguing notability, nor have I, nor will I. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then why bring it up at all? If you’re not arguing for notability, stop padding the thread with procedural noise. This isn’t about understanding what inclusion in deletion discussions technically means — it’s about why you’re using it in a way that distracts from the real question: Does this subject meet WP:GNG?
Spoiler: It doesn’t. No significant, independent, in-depth coverage. Just a viral moment regurgitated by tabloids and low-tier blogs. WikiProject notices don’t change that. They don’t strengthen the article. They don’t rebut deletion. So if you’re not using them to argue for keeping, then they’re irrelevant to this discussion. Full stop
Momentoftrue (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already stated above why deletion discussions are included in sorting lists. You didn't seem to have an issue earlier when User:Wcquidditch added this discussion into the sorting lists for Women, Journalism, Video games, Sexuality and gender, California, and Minnesota.. so why are you having this reaction now with me? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right that sorting lists are standard practice. But let’s be very clear: inclusion in these lists is meaningless when it comes to establishing notability. It doesn’t matter if this was added to Women, Journalism, Video games, or the Galactic Senate — that has zero bearing on whether the subject meets WP:GNG. These are organizational tools for participation, not arguments for inclusion. No one’s “having a reaction” to you — the reaction is to a pattern of editors propping up a fundamentally hollow article with procedural fluff.
What actually matters — and what continues to be completely absent — is significant, in-depth coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Not gossip sites. Not recycled outrage. Not tabloid blurbs about one viral controversy. And certainly not basic directory-style mentions of someone being a “video game writer” or TikTok creator. There is no serious journalistic engagement with this person’s career, impact, or body of work. Just a one-time firestorm that faded as fast as it came — textbook WP:BLP1E.
This page is not encyclopedic. It is event amplification, plain and simple. No amount of name-dropping project tags will change that. So let’s cut through the procedural noise and get back to the core of AfD: Does this article satisfy the standards of notability and verifiability? It does not. And until someone produces actual WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources, all the sorting lists in the world won’t fix that.
Momentoftrue (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Willthacheerleader18, I hope this reads as well intentioned as its meant to be, but I'd encourage you to drop the stick as well. Momentoftrue's bludgeoning is obviously unacceptable, but the continued back and forth is fanning the flames. The closing admin will handle what's happening here appropriately, I recommend disengaging. Taffer😊💬(she/they) 06:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that but they continue to spam regardless. I will no longer participate in this discussion. I hope someone deals with this. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment (strongly felt) I'm not surprised, Willthacheerleader18. This is a ridiculous AfD and I'm ashamed to be involved. Arguments are not measured by how many kilobytes you use to repeat the same argument over and over again. I've not read all of it. I would be surprised if anyone has. It seems that the thrust is that editors should not be repeatedly creating needless content based on a single idea or an aim for good work...... and to convince anyone who cares to read it ... someone is repeatedly creating needless content based on a single idea!! Talking of "textbook WP:BLP1E territory" ... this is ONE article and ONE AfD. If an article was written in this way then it would be instantly deleted. My advice is to stop typing... no one is listening... and you undermining your argument by restating it over and over again. I could repeat this message below in umpteen different ways, but it would undermine this message. Pleased read and heed this short message. Victuallers (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Victuallers: Thank you. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for hatting parts of this discussion, Fortuna imperatrix mundi. I read a lot of it but it was extremely repetitive, both the phrasing ("clear" ["Let’s clear something up", "let's be clear"] was used 28 times) and the policy arguments. Textbook bludgeoning. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as right now, it looks like a probable No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Other than the current sources being used for the article, this subject has mostly been covered by dubious/unreputable sources. If this subject can only exist in the context of one or two incidents and any other editions are bound to be unhelpful, it may be worth deleting the article. I doubt Lilly Contino will ever be notable outside of niche internet discussions.
Rylee Amelia (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Contino seems likely to end up in the news again in the future for other events, but the reporting on her does seem overall dubious. I'm not sure if it's necessarily useful to keep an article on a subject whose notability seems to hinge on "rage baiting" since reporting on that is likely to remain questionably notable/reliable at best, but I'd love to be proven wrong on those fronts. Taffer😊💬(she/they) 02:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. While there is enough coverage, it does not come from quality sources. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteTie

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:ORG, orphaned article, there is no determined whenever going out of business. However, these sources are WP:SYNTH. Absolutiva (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable company, not to mention, the article is pretty promotional in context. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Taek-Gwang Lee

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

Article doesn't give evidence of WP:NACADEMIC passing. Also reads a bit like MOS:PUFFERY; possible COI. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the user who created this article was confirmed a sockpuppet of the previous person who created this article. They've been blocked. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kashim Musa Tumsah

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

WP:ROTM Lawyer, Diplomat, Farmer (he is described as such). Likely UPE, WP:ADMASQ. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OgaMusa and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onoja1. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:BIO. One of a remarkable number of likely UPE bios of which many have appeared at AfD and been deleted 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletin of the Irish Biogeographical Society

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

Upon review, no reliable sources could be found that are independent of the source and contain relevant factual information. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Nixleovel (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no WP:SIGCOV. Plus, the society itself doesn't even have an article. GoldRomean (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Nepal bus crashes

[edit]
2016 Nepal bus crashes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find sustained significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Kullu bus accident

[edit]
2019 Kullu bus accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find sustained significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Party (Peru)

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

https://repositoriodigital.bnp.gob.pe/bnp/recursos/2/html/el-estado-en-la-sombra/36/ has been suggested but I have not found enough other sources to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - alternative redirect target would be to the Peruvian resistance movement in the War of the Pacific. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a machine translation of the Spanish Wikipedia's description of this party in its article on Peru's Democratic Party at es:Partido Demócrata (Perú)#Fundación
    • After resigning the government in November 1881, Piérola left for Europe, but before that organized the bases of a national party in Lima, to unify the political forces of Peru (February 5, 1882). In addition to the founder, the Central Steering Committee of this party was composed of Antonio Arenas, Aurelio García y García, Rufino Torrico, José Antonio de Lavalle and Lino Alarco, and had as secretaries Manuel Pablo Olaechea, Ricardo Palma, Eduardo Villena and Arturo García. This National Party, of ephemeral duration, is the immediate antecedent of the Democratic Party."
    Peru was occupied by Chile at this time. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment. I'm struggling to make sense of the sources, to the point that I can't even figure how many 19th-century Peruvian political parties were named the Partido Nacional. One source refers to a Partido Nacional from the 1870s that supported Mariano Ignacio Prado and was a "third way" between the Civilista Party and the supporters of Nicolás de Piérola (pg 160-161). A second source recognizes the Partido Nacional as opposing Piérola. A third source talks about the Partido Nacional being an important force in the 1870s, "imploding" after the War of the Pacific (pg 39), then giving rise to Piérola's Partido Demócrata (pg 47). A fourth source states that A inicios de 1882, se fundó el Partido Nacional que reunía a diversas figuras del pierolismo [At the beginning of 1882, the National Party was founded, which united diverse figures within Pierolismo]. This doesn't match up with the three aforementioned sources, but it does match the source presented by Chidgk1, which states that the Partido Nacional was founded in early 1882 by "elements close to Piérola". Maybe someone else would have better luck sorting this one out? PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I machine-translated the link that Chidgk1 provided above. It discusses the machinations of various politicians aligned with Nicolás de Piérola and against the collaborationist Provisional President of Peru, Francisco García Calderón, during the Chilean occupation of Peru. The Spanish Wikipedia article I quoted above summarizes this paper's description of the Party pretty well - it was basically a collection of Piérola associates and "ephemeral" in duration. Not much of a real party, in other words.
    The paper is not about the National Party per se but rather the maneuvering. It could be used to maybe establish a weak notability. It's telling that the Spanish Wikipedia covers this period in detail but only mentions this National Party in passing. The party does not have an article.
    I suggest we redirect this article to Peruvian resistance movement in the War of the Pacific and merge the material I quoted above from the Spanish Wikipedia to a small, new section on political developments in the resistance article. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Media phone

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

Article with almost no content, unreferenced and tagged for over a year. No evidence of notability. "Media phone" sounds like a generic term and would need references for clarification. —danhash (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tabproduction Studios

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article relies on self-published content (e.g., Facebook pages), lacks citations, and reads as promotional. No evidence of notability as a recording studio or label. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XYZ Entertainments

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The article lacks significant, independent, and reliable sources that establish notability. Existing references are mostly blogs, user-generated content and trivial mentions. No clear demonstration of lasting impact or verifiable prominence as a corporate entity. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn't have enough sources to establish notability. Darkm777 (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People's Democratic Temperance League

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

Article has only 2 cites - I think there ought to be 3 good cites to show it is notable - people in Finland may know offline cites? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - there's no policy or guideline requiring three good sources to establish notability. WP:THREE is just a redirect to one user's opinion: User:RoySmith/Three best sources. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This news article from the article gives an in-depth look at the party:
    • "Hyvän elämäntavan jäljillä" (PDF). Kansan Uutiset Viikkolehti (Supplement) (in Finnish). 21 March 2014. Retrieved 22 June 2025.
    I think it's sufficient to build an article on. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article's other ref cites a Finnish humanities academic portal, Agricola; the link is dead. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The link works for me, so perhaps there is some geographical limitation. The ref is a review of Työväen raittiusliike sata vuotta: hyvien elämäntapojen jäljillä (2014), a general history of temperance movement in Finland. The ref itself does not discuss KDRL in depth: it mentions the split, but not much more. However, the book is likely to contain a more comprehensive history of KDRL. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When I set my vpn to Finland I can see that link otherwise not. Google translates the paragraph as:
    “Obtaining funding certainly guided the change in direction of the temperance movement at least in the 1980s. When municipal temperance appropriations were directed to purchasing services, temperance organizations became service providers. For example, the People's Democratic Temperance League maintained a Companion Phone, where people could call, among other things, about their substance abuse problems. The service served as an alternative to similar services offered by parishes. Money for initiatives and projects was received from RAY.” Chidgk1 (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The other paragraph directly discussing KDRL is: In 1948, the communist temperance movement established its central organization, the People's Temperance Work Center. When the central organization fell into the hands of the Taistolaiset in 1974 under the name People's Temperance League, those supporting the party's majority faction founded their own central organization, the People's Democratic Temperance League. Until its merger into the Finnish Lifestyle Association ELO in 1993, there were three leftist temperance movement central organizations operating: one for the Social Democrats, one for the majority Communists, and one for the Taistolaiset. Since 2012, labor movement-based temperance organizations have operated together with other temperance organizations under a common organization, EHYT ry. The key driving force behind the mergers of temperance organizations in both 1993 and 2012 were the wishes and guidelines of the funding organization RAY during financially tight times. Other parts provide the relevant context. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mondo Music Corporation

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article is unsourced and reads like a promotional stub. No evidence of widespread notability, impact, or independent media attention. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn't have enough sources to establish notability. The artists on the label also have questionable notability.Darkm777 (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drinah Nyirenda

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Article is based on sparse and trivial references with no clear demonstration of notability. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tasila Mwale

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. The article provides no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Most references are either user-generated, promotional, or trivial. No evidence of sustained national or international notability. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Femi Akinkuebi

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

Non-notable state appointee with trivial mentions in routine press coverage Ednabrenze (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Previously draftified at Draft:Femi_Akinkuebi but nothing salvageable there either. Insufficient coverage from reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Go to Jail

[edit]
Don't Go to Jail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally proposed the deletion of this article with the concern, "This article only cites a primary source, while the rest of it is unsourced. I tried searching for secondary sources (including books and scholars) but found none. Therefore, this topic most likely fails the general notability guideline." User:BOZ then removed the PROD and suggested that the article be merged to Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs, which I thought would be inappropriate because all of its text is pretty much unsalvageable, not to mention that the one primary source used to cite one sentence is now a permanent dead link. There was also the suggestion of redirecting to said page, which I was a bit skeptical about because the only mention of it there cites About.com (known today as Dotdash Meredith), which is a situational source according to the perennial sources list. (For the reliability of the source in the context of board games, I'll leave that up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games.) Basically, I'm still favoring this article's deletion. 1isall (talk/contribs) 18:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AStA

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

Needs at least one cite to prove that it is not just the German phrase for “student union”. The German article linked to Students' union also seems to lack cites. I don’t know enough about Germany to know one way or the other. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mopeli Molapo

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

Contested draftification. After it was prodded, Habst has been gaming the system to have this indefinitely in draft space. I say indefinitely because there is no way coverage is going to appear - there is simply no good claim to notability. As this is an invalid use of draftspace, it is therefore now in article space, and promptly nominated for failing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for Nationalism in Scotland

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

I searched and https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n05/colin-kidd/new-unions-for-old might be a source but that is not enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bozo Ratliff

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

I tried looking for any information about this musician, whose article just says he wrote one song, and I couldn't even find anything about him. Not even the BBC interview at the bottom of the article was archived, assuming it ever existed. GamerPro64 17:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran transition government

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

Everything here that mentions the government is a primary source from the transitional government itself, or a related Iranian diaspora organization. There are no secondary sources for things besides statements from Pahlavi.

Source analysis:

  • 1 is a Twitter link.
  • 2 is a diaspora Iranian organization, primary source.
  • 3 is the closest thing here to a secondary source, but also fails to establish this as a clear new government, if anything it provides notability for an article called "Munich Convergence Meeting" rather than the government. The article itself states that the meeting did not intend to "launch a new organization."
  • 4 talks about the conference but doesn't mention the government.
  • 5 to 19 are all either Twitter links, or reliable sources that discuss Reza Pahlavi's statements, but do not actually discuss the transitional government.
  • 20 to 27 are primary sources from the government themselves.
  • 28 to 34 again, are news articles discussing Pahlavi and the prospect of regime change.

In short, there are no secondary sources that establish the transitional government is notable, and no news articles that even mention it existing. As such I don't think it meets notability guidelines. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note that a single news article (from a secondary source) that elaborates on what the transition government actually is would likely at least establish it exists, its just that everything listed so far either is a primary source or a news article of Pahlavi saying that he has a "transition plan" which is distinct from the fully fledged organization described in this article. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I wouldn't reject notability entirely as it is quite often discussed among opposition groups especially with recent events. I do though have some hesitancy about a full article since it's mostly proposals at this time and not any institutional government right now (PM, cabinet, etc). Because of this, I think the material in the article should be transferred over to the Iranian opposition page, and it can separate out as an article in the future if an actual transitional government is formed. TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep (note that I wrote the article): The topic is very notable and naturally governments in exile of non Anglo-Saxon countries tend to be covered mainly by diaspora newspapers in their native languages. That’s why many of the sources are non English and come from diaspora based outlets. This particular government in exile is in formation since February and has grown particularly relevant following the Iran Israel war. Overall I wholeheartedly agree with Dn9ahx KiltedKangaroo (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Dn9ahx Mahan (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. If the threshold for notability is coverage by diaspora groups and media, then any opposition or separatist movement could have a "transition government" article for some hypothetical future. Should there be a Chinese transitional government article or US dictatorship article just because some authors in reliable sources have speculated on these topics? No, of course not, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. A claimed exile government is different in that it at least exists, but having an article dedicated to a transitional government that is merely speculative seems WP:TOOSOON. Yue🌙 18:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This topic is notable and is oftentimes discussed amongst Iranian opposition groups and individual figures. Even if it is not notable here, it may be notable elsewhere. ISRO4883 (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Hawkins

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, as they've had no major roles in any films. Ed [talk] [OMT] 07:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: While he had a supporting role in a blockbuster film as a child, as an adult he's since retreated into what appears to be an ordinary, private life. We have a couple of acquaintances in common, because NYC is the smallest village in the world. I don't want to write too much, to avoid revealing too much private information. Bearian (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 16:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YachtWay

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

Soft deleted back in May. A WP:BEFORE finds nothing meeting WP:ORGCRIT. There are some mentions, unreliable sources, press releases, and routine coverage you would find with a company but nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE not notable. mentions found are WP:ORGTRIV Dualpendel (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali group of languages

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

The article cannot be expanded and has nothing to say what cannot be said in articles such as Bengali language, History of Bengali language and more. Capitals00 (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be WP:OR as mentioned above. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 12:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we check Glottolog, the Bengali-Assamese group of languages which is given the name Gauda-Kamrupa then branches out into two Kamrupa and Gauda-Banga. It is clear that this article titled Bengali group of languages is about this Gauda-Banga branch which contains all of the dialects mentioned in the article. --Jaunpurzada (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bengali–Assamese languages, seems to be a forced article with not much new content, and possible OR. Metallurgist (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 16:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone numbers in Melilla

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

Wikipedia is not a database. This can just be merged into the article for Melilla, why is disconnected information about the city its own page? Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 16:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Telephone numbers in Spain, and do the same with Telephone numbers in Ceuta and Telephone numbers in the Canary Islands, baffling why these would be separate articles. Reywas92Talk 19:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it resembles a colony, and the numbering system may not be identical to that of mainland Spain. It would be helpful if the article were to include the number ranges assigned to landlines, mobile numbers (broken down by carrier if necessary), short numbers such as 112 and other codes that are more or less standardized in the European Union, and carrier selection codes such as 10288 for AT&T in the United States. Removing this article would leave a red link in Telephone numbers in Africa. I wonder whether the Morocco telephone numbering system has reserved a range of domestic prefixes or dialling codes to reach Melilla from Morocco, even if they are not in use. The numbering system of the People's Republic of China, for example, reserves a range of numbers for Taiwan, and Republic of Ireland numbering system used to allow numbers in Northern Ireland to be called with a different prefix rather than the United Kingdom's country code of 44. LeapTorchGear (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does "may not be identical to that of mainland Spain" mean??? Do you have any evidence of that or just speculation??? You know Melilla is an integral part of Spain, not a colony? Even if they were different, Telephone numbers in Spain is perfectly capable of describing whatever you're spouting about. A redirect would not leave a red link. — Reywas92Talk 13:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Ealing London Borough Council election

[edit]
2026 Ealing London Borough Council election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. This election is scheduled to take place in May 2026. At present, no reliable and independent sources are available regarding the event and possible candidates. The article may be recreated once sufficient verifiable information becomes available. If not deleted, the article could be redirected to Ealing London Borough Council elections for the time being. QEnigma (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps it was a bit early, but it feels a bit of a waste of energy and work to delete it. Perhaps Redirect Kepleo123 (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Election is happening within the next year; article is well-written with information currently available. It wouldn't benefit Wikipedia in any way to remove the existing content only to reinstate it in a few months' time. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chessrat: No reliable, independent sources have been cited. The election may take place next year but it is still WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL if no secondary sources are available. QEnigma (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has five citations.
This sort of thing happens all the time for upcoming elections– someone writes an article on the election in question, someone else tries to get the article deleted, the attempt fails. It ~ould be a far more productive use of time to develop this article and similar articles. Chessrat (talk, contributions) Chessrat (talk, contributions) 19:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chessrat: With regards to your comment on a well written article, it appears that most of the content including some of the references have been copied from 2022 Ealing London Borough Council election but no attribution given. Please note Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). QEnigma (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As nobody has done so already, I have now added this attribution to the talk page. Thanks for pointing it out! Chessrat (talk, contributions) 19:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Primary source Yes Government website No No significant coverage of the subject ✘ No
Yes Part of Reach plc publishers of the Daily Mirror No consensus No No significant coverage of the subject ✘ No
Yes Local community-led online publication No consensus No No significant coverage of the subject ✘ No
Yes Local community-led online publication No consensus No No significant coverage of the subject ✘ No
Yes Local community-led online publication No consensus No No significant coverage of the subject ✘ 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}}.

Comment I have added a source focusing on the 2026 election specifically to the article. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The reliability of Ealing.News can be debated, but there is no consensus available (WP:RSPS). As an WP:EVENT, there should be WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable and independent sources. Such coverage should be specifically about the event and references should not rely on routine announcements or speculation. Therefore, the formation of a shadow cabinet or strategic manoeuvring by an opposition party does not automatically establish notability for the election itself ([17]). Declared candidates are a benchmark and references highlighting official candidate declarations, campaign funding, etc., are essential. QEnigma (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Radonjić operation

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

Clearly a WP:CFORK of Lake Radonjić massacre. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaila (film)

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

Doesn't pass WP:NFP and WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Afstromen (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some discussion here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kotwali Model Thana, Barisal

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

Disputed redirect without improvement. Non-notable local police station. Searches turn up mentions and the type of routine local coverage, fails WP:GNG. Will be adding the others created by this same editor to the afd with the same lack of coverage. Onel5969 TT me 18:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Thanas are administrative units and police stations both, they contain relevant and important information, deleting them is not that beneficial, yes upazila system exists and most rural thanas' administrative values have shifted to upazilas but its not the same with urban thanas, its not "non-notable", not every thana receives a 190 page summary, but also not every thana has a page on Banglapedia, these pages do, you see the wards and administration? These thanas linked with Metropolitan Police are extremely important, plus if you saw issues with the pages i created, you couldve improved them yourself, i dont have all time in the world, i have exams, assignments, homework, projects, chores and i also contribute to other platforms, i still try to improve and create pages in Wikipedia though but it would be better for Wikipedia too, if contributors improve the pages i created and many others created, thats the whole purpose, you improve pages and create some yourself, if you see a issue, you try to improve it or see whether it has importance and then talks about possible outcomes and discussions. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all also local non-notable police stations:

Airport Thana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bandar Thana, Barisal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kawnia Thana, Barisal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kotwali Model Thana, Sylhet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jalalabad Thana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bimanbandar Thana (Sylhet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shah Poran Thana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
South Surma Thana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moglabazar Thana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keep. This, and all of the other listed police station articles follow similar formats and contain similar levels of information, and are recently created in early 2025. Each seems to have a legitimate second source, and therefore fails WP:GNG. Rather than delete these articles, it might be better to treat each as a stub and wait for the Wikipedia Community to expand the articles. Revisiting these articles in one year, say June 2026, to see if they have been expanded or not, and perhaps then decide if they are legitimate candidates for deletion. Truthanado (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait you say legitimate and then you say it fails, im sorry, can you please clarify or check again if this is a mistake? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - on this, and other AfDs, it has been asserted that "Thanas are administrative units and police stations both". However, nowhere has a reputable, reliable government source been given to substantiate that claim. And even if that is correct, is it true for all thanas? Source please.Onel5969 TT me 21:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Airport Thana which according to Banglapedia, (https://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Airport_Thana) in an administrative area home to 166,870 people. It has its article on Banglapedia, which most of the 650 police stations do not. A good rule of thumb to use here would be to see if Banglapeda has an article on the subject, which would demonstrate that this particular thana is a legally recognised, populated place which are presumed to be notable. The articles would have to be reworked to focus on the area rather than the police station. In case there is no article, it's a police station, which usually is not notable. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian-Kurdish Clashes (1840-1895)

[edit]
Assyrian-Kurdish Clashes (1840-1895) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article lacks sufficient reliable sources and appears to reflect a non-neutral, possibly partisan narrative. It fails to meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability, sourcing, and neutrality. Much of the content is unsourced or poorly cited, and it presents a historical conflict in a way that seems one-sided, potentially violating Wikipedia's policies on neutrality (WP:NPOV) and verifiability (WP:V). A search for academic or high-quality sources on this specific topic yields very little coverage, suggesting it may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for historical events (WP:NOTE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeaccountfr (talk • contribs) 08:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check the page now Suraya222 (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are some pretty poorly written sections, both from a sourcing standpoint and actual written English (the ones with seemingly random capitalized words are especially jarring to look at), but the article is salveagable and I think there's at least a good chance a good article can be written on the subject. In any case I'm not going to give the benefit of the doubt to the banned (not just blocked!) nominator who is a notoriously bad faith participant. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Iraq, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.  Zemen  (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.
Jackhanma69 (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'''Keep''' - I don't see the reason for Deletion, And I provided the sources and Made the Page better Suraya222 (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'''Keep''' – if there's another problem, please tell me so I can change it. Suraya222 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'''Keep''' Suraya222 (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can Anyone Please Tell me how the hell do I type Keep but Bold and Black Suraya222 (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The information is backed by the sources. Assyrians and Kurds had many clashes in Hakkari in the 1800s that are well documented. Termen28 (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. StrongCap (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC) Blocked as a sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@StrongCap Explain why you want the page to be deleted Suraya222 (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suraya222 (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note here that both the nominator Madeaccountfr and voter StrongCap have been blocked as sockpuppets of notorious WP:LTA editor Tishreen07 [18]. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. R3YBOl (🌲) 06:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@R3YBOl could you please Explain Why do you want the page to be deleted? I mean every page I made you wanted it to be deleted Suraya222 (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Suraya222 (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think its informative and gives a good overview of Assyrian-Kurdish relations in that period. I can't find any issues with the article that's worth deleting it for.Ilamxan (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
idk why @R3YBOI Want to delete every page i make Suraya222 (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is a mess. @User:Suraya222, you are only allowed to make one bolded !vote per AfD discussion – please strike the rest. Could we get editors from outside this topic area to weigh in please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 23:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't know Suraya222 (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, you could Suraya222 (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks a case of WP:SYNTH as none of the sources discuss this subject in the context of this very specific timescale. Instead it's a bunch of meh sources not addressing the overall subject and being bolted together. That's classic synth and this feels like its either a fork from a wider more general article or should be in a wider history of the conflict if specific sources addressing the conflict as a whole are not available. Spartaz Humbug! 11:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about??? Suraya222 (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Suraya222 Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. The editor raised legitimate policy concerns about WP:SYNTH that deserve a substantive response rather than dismissal. R3YBOl (🌲) 15:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make Iran Great Again

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

A minor offshoot of the current attack on Iran by the US and Israel, lacks WP:NOTNEWS lasting notability. Could be a redirect if it is mentioned briefly in another article, otherwise should be deleted.

Oh, and the "own work" image in the article should definitely go, we are not in the business of making up nice images for current political issues. Fram (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Easiest WP:NOTNEWS ever. Jebiguess (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abílio Brandão

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT because there is no WP:SIGCOV. The only references currently are two mentions at OlympStats and a database, none of which meet the notability guidelines, and a search elsewhere didn't reveal anything better. A redirect to Portugal at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Shooting may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Fadl

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

Subject does not meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. All I could find was at [[19]], but there isn't enough significant coverage about the subject to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Ramos

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

Article is fleshed out with weak sources such as Twitter and the websites/social media accounts of the clubs he played for. I had a quick look but could not find extensive, significant coverage of Ramos. AfD rather than G7 just in case others can find articles. Zênite (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[20] - I got a '500 internal server error', but it looks like a news article about the league, which likely included Ramos' signing. Red XN
[21] - This is a (potentially self-completed) list of statistics and basic information. Red XN
[22] - One paragraph covers Ramos. Red XN
[23] - Statistics. Red XN
[24] - Facebook. Red XN
[25] - Facebook. Red XN
[26] - VERY brief match report which notes that Ramos scored. Red XN
[27] - Facebook. Red XN
[28] - Match stats. Red XN
[29] - Match stats. Red XN
[30] - Match stats. Red XN
[31] - Club stats. Red XN
[32] - List of players who played for the college who went on to sign pro contracts. Ramos is mentioned. One line. Red XN
[33] - YouTube. Red XN
[34] - Facebook. Red XN
[35] - Facebook. Red XN
[36] - Non-independent source, though it does give a fair amount of coverage, it cannot count towards GNG. Red XN
[37] - Facebook. Red XN
[38] - Facebook. Red XN
[39] - Notification of Ramos winning an award. Not sigcov. Red XN
[40] - Not sure it would be in-depth enough to constitute sigcov, but it's another non-independent source, as he was alumni at this university, and cannot count towards GNG. Red XN
[41] - I would say this is sigcov. Green tickY
[42] - Non-independent source. Red XN
[43] - Not actually available in my region, but seems to be a run-of-the-mill match report, which likely includes a reference of Ramos. Red XN
[44] - Notification of transfer. Not even an individual one. Red XN
[45] - Non-independent and not sigcov. Red XN
[46] - This appears to be a blog, but would be sigcov (IMO) if it is allowed. Question?
[47] - Statistics. Red XN
[48] - 404, but it looks like a squad announcement. Not sigcov. Red XN
[49] - Match stats. Red XN
[50] - This article is about his brother, Dylan, and makes no reference to him. Red XN

Overall, we have one, potentially two, of the thirty-one sources which are significant coverage. Zênite (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, it is natural that for an athlete from the US Virgin Island the most substantial part of the coverage is through social media. I think it is valid WP:COMMONSENSE. Svartner (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I would like to agree with this, the problem we then face is that the social media coverage comes from non-independent sources. Of the social media links in the article, 5 is the academy he was playing for announcing a touring squad, 6 is the club he was playing for at the time announcing that he was moving to a new club, 8 again is the academy stating that a number of their players were looking for contracts in Europe, 14 is a YouTube video that provides little information, and is just clips of him playing, 15 was deleted or the account went private, but regardless, it was still non-independent as it was the page of the club he played for. 16 is the same club announcing that he would return for the 2020 season, 18 is a university announcing that they had recruited Ramos, and 19 is his club at the time announcing the news that the university had recruited him.
While I would support contributions to sigcov coming from social media (i.e. YouTube interviews/news segments, Facebook interviews/in-depth coverage), I do not think this applies here. Zênite (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-I make this comment and ask this question every time someone nominates an article like this one for deletion. What motivates someone to want people to have less access to information? I understand Wikipedia has guidelines but what motivate someone to take the time and effort to defend the removal of access to information. I understand if someone made one friendly appearance for Saint Martin and the only reference is the NFT profile, but there is so much information available here. He’s playing in a fully professional league, captain of his national team, will likely become their most capped player. Again I ask, why try so hard to wipe someone from Wikipedia existence?--Gri3720 (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the better question here is "Why do the US Virgin Islands, or at least sports journalists from the nation, not care about their football team's captain enough to even write basic news articles about him?" From my experience, journalism on football players in the US and it's territories has always been awful, as it's a nation which only loves and appreciates those who are successful. While, in other countries, there is generally at least one good article written about a mundane third/fourth division footballer, in the US it seems they just do not care. It's not even a population issue either, as I have found multiple articles on Chinese players who have done nothing of note in their careers. Zênite (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not that impressed with Zênite's assessment, however it gives a little indication on sources. A X for the PDF scan of a small town newspaper called Highland News-Sun seems notable enough. I'd say the article squeaks by enough with those sources considering the issues of WP:PRIMARY. Govvy (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are two Highland News-Sun articles cited on this Wiki page. The first contains the following information about Ramos:

Joshua Ramos, senior, Sebring - Ramos showed great vision and was the team-leader in goals scored for the Blue Streaks. “Joshua controlled the field very well and had incredible vision,” coach Peters said. “He led the team in goals with 14 for the season and in assists at 15. He was a natural leader and it showed off and on the field and his presence will be missed.”

The second contains the following information about Ramos:

and with my other brother playing soccer it was kind of a mandatory thing for me to play because my whole family plays.

This would be due to the second article being about his brother, Dylan. We don't even know for certain that this quote is even about Joshua, as Dylan precedes this by talking about another brother who is a goalkeeper.
I feel like I'm losing my mind here. These are not nearly enough for sigcov. Even if we ignore the fact that most of the references are primary, the sources in this article are brief. If the Facebook articles went into great depth about Ramos and his life, fair enough, but they simply do not. Zênite (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Tadić (footballer)

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

Footballer who only played in lower levels of Serbia. The secondary sources provided do not show in-depth coverage of him. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Jalgaon train accident

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of ethnic cleansing by Kurdish forces in northern Syria (2015–2016)

[edit]
Allegations of ethnic cleansing by Kurdish forces in northern Syria (2015–2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like AI and is created by a user who recently got indeffed for creating hoaxes. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Average kurd and DataNomad, again 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While no consensus for delete, neither is there consensus for keep - further contributions would be useful - does the topic actually warrant a stand alone page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because Wynwick55gl, who commented above, has since been checkuser-indeffed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rowdy Rocky

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

Non notable film. Doesn't satisfy WP:NFP or WP:GNG. Afstromen (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fortude

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

This company doesn't seem to warrant a standalone article per WP:NCORP; sources I could find seem to fail WP:ORGCRIT (I'll add a breakdown below).

I think the article should be deleted or redirected to Brandix. But the (declared paid) article creator reverted an earlier change to a redirect, and reverted my recent attempt at a move to draftspace, so I'm coming here to reach a consensus.

Some additional context: The paid creator originally started the article as a draft in AFC. Once it was rejected twice at AFC,[54] they copy and pasted the article directly into mainspace,[55] and then possibly blanked the original rejected draft.[56] I attempted to explain that they should go through AFC on their talkpage when I moved it to draftspace, but they simply reverted the move with no explanation, and then expanded the article with more press releases. - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator comment: Below are my breakdown of the sources currently in the article (excluding sources from Fortude or Brandix). Outside of these sources, the ones I could find (even using the company's previous name) mainly seemed to be press releases or routine coverage.
Assessment of sources from current article
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
No byline; author could be anyone, but it reads like a company press release No byline; author could be anyone and there may not be much editorial oversight No No discussion/analysis; seems like press release/routine coverage Yes
No byline, same as above No byline, same as above No No discussion/analysis; seems like press release/routine coverage Yes
No Paid press release from GlobeNewswire No Paid press release No Paid press release No Press release
No Press release from GlobeNewswire No Press release No Press release No Press release
No Press release from GlobeNewswire No Press release No Press release No Press release
Yes Independent author, but about half of the article is quotes from employees May not have much editorial oversight; author is one of 2 editors of the website No No in-depth coverage/analysis of Fortude Yes
No Press release from GlobeNewswire No Press release No Press release No Press release
No byline; author could be anyone, but it reads like a company press release No byline; author could be anyone and there may not be much editorial oversight No Coverage of name change with no discussion/analysis Yes
No Published by Microsoft, the giver of the grant to Fortude that is mentioned in the article Yes No 1 sentence about Fortude Yes
No Published by Microsoft, same as above Yes Lots of info, but seems like routine coverage of facts without analysis Yes
No Published by Microsoft, same as above Yes No 1 passing mention of Fortude (in list of thank yous to Microsoft's "customers and partners") Yes
No author byline, meaning author could be anyone; reads like press release/churnalism Seems to have an editorial team, but no author byline makes it questionable No Routine coverage, no analysis/discussion about Fortude Yes
No byline; author could be anyone No byline, and I cannot find listed the editorial team or oversight on the website Yes Yes
No byline; author could be anyone, and it reads like a press release; line "as we collectively strive" sounds like it was copied from something sent to them Not sure, because of absence of byline Seems like routine coverage, but there does seem to be some extra discussion/cultural context given Yes
No byline; author could be anyone Not sure, because of absence of byline No Seems like press release/routine coverage of award; no analysis of the company Yes
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UniCredit Bank Slovakia

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

A relatively minor bank that was only present on the Slovak market as an independent bank for six years before being merged with the Czech UniCredit. Newklear007 (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, It is a minor now defunct bank and from what I can tell the significant information regarding its mergers is already in the UniCredit Bank Czech Republic and Slovakia. Because of this the article UniCredit Bank Slovakia itself doesn't hold much value, although the page view statistics do indicate that people view the page, so perhaps a redirect to UniCredit Bank Czech Republic and Slovakia is more appropriate so people at least find the relevant information. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 11:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important. Jdn2004 (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FuelTech

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

I couldn't find real WP:SIGCOV for this, excluding press releases, copies of press releases on industry websites, and one promotional interview. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the three references presented by Svartner is that they all fail WP:CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jigger & Pony

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

Non-notable location only mentioned once in The World's 50 Best Bars. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 12:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Can't find any other secondary sources that covers the subject. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 12:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Kazakhstan President Cup (football)

[edit]
2019 Kazakhstan President Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles from editions of a U17 competition almost all without any references or just with one source (from the own Kazakhstan Football Federation). Fails in WP:V and WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Kazakhstan President Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017 Kazakhstan President Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2016 Kazakhstan President Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2015 Kazakhstan President Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Kazakhstan President Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013 Kazakhstan President Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012 Kazakhstan President Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 Kazakhstan President Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010 Kazakhstan President Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2009 Kazakhstan President Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2008 Kazakhstan President Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diés Iraé

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

Fails WP:NFF. Not yet released and nothing notable about the production. Lots of promotional sourcing about the film which is understandable but nothing to establish WP:GNG either. Moved to draft space earlier as an WP:ATD but now back in mainspace so here we are. CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a common misconception that completion of principal photography is enough to meet WP:NFF. On the contrary, it says, "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." The film has not yet been released and is only tentatively scheduled to be released in five months so it would not meet notability under that guideline. As far as WP:GNG the press is all promotional churnalism that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA (check the bylines - or lack thereof). --CNMall41 (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41, the point of highlighting post-production was to clarify that it exceeds the outright notability fail criteria. I also note separately that there appears to be enough reliable coverage, and I do share your concerns around WP:NEWSORGINDIA. But the examples I cited, The Hindu and Variety both are considered generally reliable. Plus both references have bylines that indicate non-promotional reporting. I grant that other sources may be context dependent and I haven't examined all, but I cannot make the determination of churnalism (which is likely to be true for any film/entertainment related article to some extent in my opinion) based on current sources to support a deletion. — WeWake (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we share the same concerns with NEWSORGINDIA unfortunately. Most NEWSORGINDA sources come from reliable publications. It's the content that needs to be looked at closely to determine if the source can be used. The Hindu is a reliable source but the specific reference is unbylined churnalism which can also be seen here, here, and here to name a few (notice the dates of publication). This is typical promotional press you see prior to a film's release. Can you show anything about the production that is noteworthy or notable under WP:NFF? For Variety, it is bylined by the same journalist who writes about all Indian film for that publication which they likely get from press releases or promotional announcements. See one of the many churnalized references with the same content. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 23:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At present the discussion appears to suggest there are only two possible reliable sources, which the nominator is contesting for repetition of press releases. Other contributions to the discussion would be useful that comment on the disputed sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Kazakhstan Futsal Cup

[edit]
2015 Kazakhstan Futsal Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. No sources, and there is no main article to redirect. Svartner (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Gow (sporting director)

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

I really don't know how this passes WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. I see nothing exceptional or notable about this person. Govvy (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory B. Johnson

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

Disputed Prod. No evidence of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mamaison Hotels & Residences

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

Article created by WP:SPA. References provided do not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG, as these are all directly from the company itself. Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. C679 10:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maria Zubková

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

Coverage seems to be limited to match reports or squad announcements. Couldn't find multiple independent sources discussing this individual in detail. C679 10:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bandi Sailu

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

Unsourced, and searches turned up no WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BIO. It's possible that non-English sources are available, and if these are identified, I would be happy to withdraw my nomination. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Six Flags Dubai

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

A cancelled amusement park with no evidence of having been anything but a concept; was in development hell for ~8 years, and then cancelled in 2019 with no plans to revive it. Fails WP:GNG as it doesn't have many high quality sources talking about it - most sources simply announce the opening or the cancellation of the park. Borderline WP:NOTNEWS. jolielover♥talk 09:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Periplum

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

The sources provided don't give sigcov. The article reads largely like a dictionary entry and makes little attempt to show notability; rather simply showing that the word exists. Any content to be preserved could perhaps be included in Periplus Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Ćopić

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

Unable to find reliable sources to indicate notability Nixleovel (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (film)

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

Non notable unreleased film. Most sources are not independent of the subject. Production has been halted due to unavailability of costars [65]. No update since November of 2024. Draftify if release is still possible, somehow. DareshMohan (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of incidents of violence against women in Spain

[edit]
List of incidents of violence against women in Spain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:SALAT, this is far too general a topic to make a manageable list. (List of incidents of violence against women is also up for Afd.) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Madanmohan Leander

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

Vanity page, created by a single-purpose account who recreated this page several times in draft space. See: Draft:Prashant Madanmohan and Draft:Xternal, which indicates that author is either a paid editor or likely has a conflict of interest. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't show sufficient coverage from reliable sources, and there's little indication that subject warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris talk! 07:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thehugolion (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thehugolion (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

Keep Thehugolion (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC) Oppose deletion — Subject meets notability criteria under WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:CREATIVE[reply]

1. Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (GNG): Contrary to the nomination, the article cites multiple reliable, third-party sources with non-trivial coverage:

These sources reflect broad, non-trivial coverage across national and international outlets, satisfying WP:GNG.

2. Meets WP:ANYBIO: Recognized honors The subject was awarded notable distinctions:

  • "Arvestaget" title from the Republic of Armenia for cultural contributions (with photo and embassy references).
  • Guest speaker at the Armenian Genocide commemoration in New Delhi (2024), a high-profile diplomatic event.
  • Reminiscier Fellowship 2025 by Global Cultural Council.

These are significant, non-self-bestowed recognitions that meet the threshold for WP:ANYBIO.

3. Creative and scholarly output (WP:CREATIVE, WP:AUTHOR): Dr. Leander has authored:

  • The God of Deserted Memories – launched at a 7-day literary exhibition with diplomatic support.
  • The Monk With A Stethoscope – a widely distributed philosophical memoir.
  • Books on Armenian heritage supported by cultural centers and embassies.
  • A biography of impressionist artist Lems Nersisyan.

This meets WP:CREATIVE and WP:AUTHOR based on quality, distribution, and recognition.

4. Additional contributions and presence:

  • Founder of Cognishift.org and the Indo-Armenian-French Art & Literary Confluence (attended by 500+ people and supported by Lalit Kala Akademi, Ministry of Culture).
  • Citations and publications on ResearchGate and Google Scholar.
  • Referenced by both Indian and Armenian official and diplomatic entities.

5. Draft history and intent: Yes, the article had earlier drafts. However, the current article reflects significant effort to meet notability, with references from high-quality sources and no promotional tone. Previous draft iterations should not be held against a now-verified and well-sourced article.

Conclusion: This subject clearly meets Wikipedia notability criteria for authors, cultural figures, and honorees. The article can be improved, but deletion is unwarranted.

Recommendation: Keep and improve.

LLM cruft collapsed, ducplicate !votes struck. Geschichte (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

Additional point — Mainstream Indian media coverage strengthens WP:GNG

The subject has been covered by Indulge Express, the arts and culture vertical of The New Indian Express, a major national newspaper in India. This feature article highlights his Indo-French-Armenian literary work and his cultural event at Lalit Kala Akademi:

Indulge Express article – May 10, 2025

This is a **significant source** from **mainstream Indian media** and is both **independent** and **non-trivial**, thereby satisfying the core requirements of WP:GNG. It reinforces the fact that the subject’s work has attracted attention in recognized national publications with editorial oversight.

This is in addition to other sources like The Times of India, ThePrint, and Business Standard, confirming that the article meets general notability criteria through multiple independent, reputable media sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehugolion (talk • contribs) 14:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional point — Recognized by Armenian Ministry of Culture and conferred the "Arvestaget" title

In 2024, the subject was formally recognized by Armenian cultural institutions and awarded the honorary title of "Arvestaget" by the Republic of Armenia for his contributions to the preservation and promotion of Armenian culture, literature, and memory.

This recognition was:

  • Conferred with the support of the Armenian Ministry of Culture
  • Publicly documented with photographs and permanent links (see references in article)
  • Issued in conjunction with his cross-cultural literary work and diplomatic events organized in Armenia and India

This satisfies WP:ANYBIO which includes individuals who have received significant national or international honors from recognized cultural or governmental bodies. It also strengthens his profile as a notable figure in Indo-Armenian literary diplomacy and heritage work.

Such recognition from a national ministry of culture is notable, rare, and equivalent in value to inclusion in state-level halls of fame or cultural orders often cited in other AfD keep arguments. Thehugolion — Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Notability Basis — National Honors and Cross-Cultural Recognition from Armenia’s Ministry of Culture

The subject was conferred the honorary title of “Arvestaget” by the **Republic of Armenia** in 2024 for his cultural, literary, and philosophical contributions to Armenian heritage and Indo-Armenian relations. The title was formally conferred with the **backing of the Armenian Ministry of Culture and the Avetik Isahakyan Central Cultural Center**, a national-level institution. This distinction is documented through official references and photographs cited in the article.

Such **official cultural recognition from a national government** directly satisfies WP:ANYBIO under WP:NBOOK criteria under: _"The person has received a well-known and significant honor at a national or international level."_ WP:AUTHOR criteria 2 and 4 , book being part of exhibition in India's premier Government National Academy of Art - Lalit Kala Akademi with International attendence- Armenia and France. This parallels arguments used successfully in other biographies (e.g., state-wide halls of fame, high-profile fellowships), and carries special weight given the cross-cultural nature of the award involving three nations (India–Armenia–France).

The recognition was linked to the subject's books and artistic collaborations that have been independently covered in national and international press (Republic of Armenia government centre Avetik Isahakyan Centre,Indian Embassy website, Times of India, ThePrint, Business Standard, Indulge Express).

Combined with national press coverage and scholarly output, this title substantiates a strong claim for notability. Keep --Thehugolion (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Informal economy of South Asia

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

Llm-generated page including llm-generated sourcing. The sources bear minimal relationship to the text they are citing. For example, the first source in the lead supports essentially nothing in the lead, and similarly does not support its use in the Women's Contributions and Gender Disparities section/paragraph. That most are abstract pages that link onwards to a proper source is a further indication of an llm trying to find something vaguely related to the article title. CMD (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and India. CMD (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ESSAY. The topic could conceivably be notable, but the article is just a roundabout listing of general issues related to informal economies, with practically nothing specifically said about the informal economy in South Asia. Nicely-arranged but informationless LLM drivel. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am the original creator of this article. I would like to clarify that "Informal economy of South Asia" was written entirely by me without the use of any large language model (LLM) or AI tool. At the time of writing, I had no knowledge of ChatGPT or LLMs — I only learned about them later during a Wikipedia discussion, which is visible on my user talk page.

This article was written using basic tools like voice typing, grammar correction, and manual research using Google and YouTube. My goal was to contribute meaningful, regionally relevant content. I am from Pakistan; my native language is Urdu, but I studied English literature, which may explain why my writing appears formal or academic — but it is entirely my own.

I want to address the sourcing issue directly. Contrary to concerns raised, the sources used in this article are real, relevant, and were selected manually by me. They reflect authentic research on the informal economy, with references from organizations like the ILO, World Bank, UNDP, academic journals, and regional institutions. These are not hallucinated or AI-suggested sources — they were chosen carefully through topic searches on Google Scholar and official websites. If any citation format is incorrect or a link is too abstract, I am willing to revise and improve the formatting. But the content is valid and based on serious research.

I also wish to clarify a comment about my “sudden replies” possibly being AI-generated. Actually, I use voice typing and grammar correction tools (like Google Keyboard), which allow me to respond quickly and clearly — this does not mean I used a chatbot. In fact, AI-generated responses take time to write, review, and copy. My communication style is shaped by my education and tools, not by AI.

I have openly admitted that I used AI assistance in **other projects**, such as the article "Prevention of World War III" (for referencing help), and for Urdu translations (because my Urdu writing is weak). But this article — “Informal economy of South Asia” — is my own, and it reflects a more personal, manual writing style.

Finally, the article was accepted, remained stable for more than 7 days, and can be further improved if needed. I respectfully request that it be retained and improved, not deleted.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

— Muhammad Ali Rana — Preceding undated comment added 11:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This version of this article, which contains no edits by users other than Alirana24, scores as AI-generated by: ZeroGPT (69%), Sapling (97%), and CopyLeaks (100%). Of the six sources cited, only one link leads to a source matching the bibliographic data Alirana24 supplied, and it doesn't support the text where they have cited it. WP:TNT applies. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete LLM-generated text including hallucinations. Vague topic, because of this dubious notability. WP:TNT. Sjö (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per above. It's high time we amend CSD to be able to speedy articles made by AI, and including LLM hallucinations. Ravenswing 22:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National-revolutionary

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

Synthy OR mess, and apparently the previous attempt was a synthy OR mess as well. Does not distinguish from revolutionary nationalism and generally appears to lack coherence as a distinct topic. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cilovluq genocide

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

this article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. The topic lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent, and verifiable sources. Most of the references are either partisan, locally produced, or non-scholarly, and the event is not discussed in academic or mainstream historical literature. Furthermore, the article appears to violate Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy by presenting a one-sided narrative without acknowledging other perspectives or providing balanced context. Without reliable sources and a neutral tone, this topic does not merit a standalone article on Wikipedia. 

Wikivro (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry but you are very incorrect, Cilovluq is very mainstream and famous in Azerbaijan. So instead of nominating everything for deletion simply because you don’t research enough, maybe go on google and search it up. They have even done excavations and found bones, there is also photographic evidence and eyewitness testimony as provided in the page. Also I still don’t think you understand, the sources are literally academic and from eyewitness testimony, and also historians? You know this event is highly documented in books right? It’s very known that the Assyrians and Armenians under Agha Petros committed atrocities in order to establish an Assyrian region and get rid of the Muslims in Iranian Azerbaijan. And the page literally provided perspectives from other authors?!? It includes reliable sources and a neutral tone, how about you provide some examples when nominating the whole page for deletion. The page has a total of 70 sources, all of which is accessible in one way or another. And we can add even more if that’s necessary, the genocide deserves more recognition from English readers. The Muslim people of Iranian Azerbaijan deserve recognition. the ottomans literally cried when they recaptured the areas from the Christian’s, it was truly horrible. The muslims
of Iranian Azerbaijan have tried to get recognized, an English page on the matter is a good way to get recognition. 2A02:AA1:1164:2A69:617B:D586:307A:A0A3 (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC) - non-WP:GS/AA user --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Support per nom. R3YBOl (🌲) 11:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again Why the hell you want the page to be deleted? Suraya222 (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC) - non-WP:GS/AA user --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the page itself is well detailed and talks about the genocide in Iranian azerbajian, the page itself lists a good amount of sources about the genocide, the page itself only needs some clean up since the page is long, not necessary to delete. Jsanihsjsn (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC) - non-WP:GS/AA user --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll be blunt. This looks like yet another poorly sourced, POV worded WP:TENDENTIOUS article to serve as some sort of counter against the Armenian genocide and Assyrian genocide. It's also created by a non-WP:GS/AA user, and heck, all the "Keep" votes are also by non-WP:GS/AA users, and thus I've striked their comments. I recall a smart user once saying that there are no coincidences in WP:GS/AA articles, something is clearly up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran I can smell WP:MEAT and I think someone is trying to avoid the block again. Kajmer05 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G5, article created in violation of extended confirmed sanctions. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is there anything precluding that non-WP:GS/AA are not able to vote in this AfD? Like @Kajmer05 said above, there is highly likely meatpuppetry involved in the making of this article, especially as a high number of meats have been created and blocked since January that focus on 20th-century conflicts related to several West Asian groups. Given the votes that were strikethrough'ed, some clarity would be useful.
Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Hastings (model ship maker)

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

A biography that only has 2 different sources (different pages from the same website are still 1 source). One of which is a non-independent obituary. The most useful of the other source is primarily just a self written article which basically makes this a WP:AUTOBIO. This issue was noted during the AFC process by Cactusisme but the article was moved to the mainspace anyways. Searching for James Hastings brings up numerous unrelated individuals and modifying the search with terms like ship models brings up nothing. Moritoriko (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He won the prestigious Craftsman of the Year award. The article that the nominator says was self-written is the article where the award is announced by the craftsmanship museum, which is why it is usable. Wikipedia considers different articles from the same source to be usable. Orlando Davis (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He also qualifies based on WP:NCREATIVE. Orlando Davis (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under the section WP:WHYN of the general Notability guideline there is a sentence that says ...multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the "multiple" requirement. So yes, we can use them but when considering a subject for notability they still count as 1. Moritoriko (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Delete I looked on the internet and couldn’t find any sources on him besides ship crafting sources and half the results weren’t even about him. I don’t think this is fit to be an article with little outside sources on him besides the ones in his profession. This also doesn’t feel written well like a Wikipedia article. The main biography passage doesn’t even have his death as a part of it. 8bit12man (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Isfahan explosion

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Iran. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was internationally reported including by non-typical sources such as MTV. There are multiple stories here which contribute to broad coverage and GNG. One is the industrial disaster, but also the profile of the related corporations and players responsible. Also sources have connected this explosion to the military manufacturing of weaponized drones, and that weapons manufacturing is of international concern beyond typical stories of industrial disaster. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Engineering and Technology

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

Does not look to be a notable institution. Barely any in-depth coverage on the same. Most of it seems to be trivial mention or paid PR Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep this is a public university with over 1000+ students and there is some coverage of it in various sources: [66] [67]. It is not extensive but probably enough for an University. --hroest 15:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D1 Denby Darts

[edit]
D1 Denby Darts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable local bus route with limited history and fails WP:GNG Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced force

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

New page reviewer said:

I was very tempted to move this page to draft as failing WP:TEXTBOOK with too much mild WP:Peacock and some WP:SYNTH, for instance including Newton's first law. Instead I did a quick clean. It may well still end up being challenged either with a PROD or at AfD because it is not fundamentally different from other, existing mechanics articles which are more extensive.

Creator is now indef blocked, so not able to work on it further. I am ambivalent as to whether this should be kept, deleted or redirected, but this decision needs input from subject experts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954:, the reviewer whom I have quoted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see the content of the article has nothing to do with the reason for the block. Let's get a couple of other opinions, and perhaps even some WP:HEY edits. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Force. Sushidude21! (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sidi Mohamed Ould Bidjel

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT. The only reference currently is a database and a search on the Eastmain MENA database came up empty. Let'srun (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Habst and @BeanieFan11, considering he was a flag bearer, there might be something about him. Svartner (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there's going to be more on him, however it will be offline – and apparently we can never consider the possibility of coverage existing that we haven't found. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the case, then every article would be kept under WP:MUSTBESOURCES. However, we have clear policies that require that secondary coverage be included in the article for all sportspeople, no matter who they are. Let'srun (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article comes after coverage is found, not before. Geschichte (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trampsta

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

Fail to meet GNG and SNG WP:COMPOSER Uncle Bash007 (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Asian Studies Society

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

Declined prod. Unreferenced for 15 years and fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom FMSky (talk) 11:31, 7 June 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 04:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there is interest in changing policy, an individual AfD is not the place to do so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Šušaja

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

Small skirmishes like this one, from an insurgency in which a total of several dozen people were killed over the course of two years, clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems like Amanuensis Balkanicus is on a bit of a rant, trying to delete anything that even mentions an Albanian insurgent victory. A battle that lasted four days, involved multiple APCs, seven tanks (one of which was damaged), as well as special forces, and left around 9 to 12 participants dead or wounded—including one member of the SAJ special forces—is clearly not a small skirmish. If we're going by that logic, why not start an AfD for the Battle of Oraovica too? GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this was a rather big escelation in insurgency, hence meets the criteria of WP:N and should stay. Durraz0 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither of these keep !votes show that the topic meets WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: per the last relisting comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Southern Syria bombings

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

WP:NOTNEWS, insignificant bombing in Syria, likely does not warrant an article. Ecrusized (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is the first attack by ISIS against the Syrian Transitional Goverment JaxsonR (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is one of the first attacks by the Islamic State against the Syrian government after the fall of Assad Farcazo (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty Useless Yesyesmrcool (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this was a useless comment, at least put effort lmao JaxsonR (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brest attack

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

An ambush with 2 overall deaths doesn't meet WP:N criteria and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: It's safe to assume anyone typing in Brest attack will be looking for the disambiguation page Battle of Brest, not this incident. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wynwick55gl: An event simply being mentioned in WP:RS is not the foremost criterion when deciding whether to keep or delete an article, see WP:EVENTCRITERIA. This is especially true of an event that is just another Tuesday in Chicago in terms of fatalities. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is laughable. Are you seriously comparing murders committed in a city like Chicago, which has more inhabitants than all of North Macedonia combined, with this insurgency? I don’t see rebels taking over parts of Chicago and ambushing some of its highest ranking politicians. And besides, a military engagement doesn’t need 500 casualties to deserve its own article, otherwise you could start AfD's for 90% of the wikipedia articles related to combat history. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, what's laughable is your belief that Wikipedia is an indiscriminate repository of information, when we have entire policy guidelines and essays explaining why it very clearly isn't. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The battle does hold significance, it was the very engagement that allowed the NLA to expand its activities into the Kumanovo region, as mentioned in the sources. These events were also widely reported in Western media, such as the LA Times, CNN, and the BBC. Furthermore, it marked another escalation of the conflict, as the NLA targeted Macedonian politicians, including Deputy Interior Minister Refet Elmazi and State Secretary of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Ljube Boškoski. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

While the Brest ambush in 2001 may appear to involve a relatively small number of casualties, we must not forget that brest was a significant route for the NLA to reach the Karadak zone. This conflict was an insurgency, and it didn't require heavy losses to have an article. Otherwise dozens articles would have to be deleted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daddyson11111 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, dozens of articles need to be deleted. Also, see WP:WHATABOUTX for arguments to avoid in a discussion. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Direct comment on the sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Abbott (footballer)

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

Doesn't have enough reliable / significant sources. They are mainly stat pages and one book mention. Darkm777 (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies GNG with new sources. Jevansen (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I-CTDi

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

This covers the same topic as Common rail#Acronyms and branding used and does not meet WP:N. It is simply a marketing term, used by Honda in the European market between 2002 and 2008.
The article was created as a redirect and remained one for 16 years, when long-term vandal Sevgilerde tried restoring it. It was then turned back into a redirect by ToadetteEdit, Rosguill, Ponyo, Boleyn, and a fifth editor who has since vanished. "i-CTDi" is simply a badging applied by Honda to two separate diesel engines, the N22A engineand an Isuzu engine modified by Honda. When Honda updated the N22A engine, they switched to the i-DTEC acronym. Both of these are simply marketing terms used by Honda for their diesel engines, just like Renault's DCi, Mercedes' Cgi, and Hyundai's CRDI - all of which were turned into articles by the same vandal and correctly turned back into redirects. Any of the meaningful content used here would be more suitable at Honda N engine or Kenichi Nagahiro (someone just needs to create that).
Also see D-4D, TDCi, Cdi, CDTi for additional, analogous redirects.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm.. I see some interesting history here. A year ago, I BLAR'd the article claiming that it was non notable, but got quickly reverted. Since then, at least two other reviewers agreed that it should be redirected to common rail, but their attempts were both reverted as well. I currently see that Andy Dingley disagreed with the views of three unique reviewers and restored the article to the version made by the sock together with expanding the article. It looks different than what I initially saw so expect a commentary within the next 24 hours. But now I doubt that the history might warrant a report at ANI, who knows? ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So I took a review of the article, and frankly enough, I do not know if it will pass WP:GNG or not. I see scholary journals discussing the subject in detail, but they are written by people at Honda, so I do not know whether the journals are independent enough or not. I also see that the first source is from Honda,so it does not establish notability in the context. I also see other websites, but they are in favor of the car models other than the subject itself. Unless it can be justified that at least two sources away from Honda show SIGCOV, Redirect to common rail with no prejudice to page development in the draftspace so as to be submitted via AFC. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that, as far as I can tell, the SAE article is specifically about the N22A engine – it's paywalled but the blurb makes no mention of the i-CTDi marketing name.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would anyone be motivated to create an article Kenichi Nagahiro , just so that you can delete it and call them a vandal?
We have policies here based on WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. You are ignoring these in favour of some personal disagreement with another editor. Even if they're guilty of whatever it is you allege, this has now grown to the detriment of the overall project. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOODFAITH, please. Compare DCi, Cgi, CRDI, D-4D, TDCi, Cdi, CDTi.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or a better message is to both of you to be separate one another and assume good faith. In particular that the comment above does not address the content but rather to the nominator, which is short of the Wikipedia:Civility policy. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't get to hide behind 'good faith' when you're the one repeatedly describing anyone who disagrees with you as a vandal. First time you did this to me you were taken to ANI over it. You then repeated the same term. So please don't pretend that you didn't know that at least one of us here finds that a deeply offensive allegation. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Jefferson

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

No sources. Only external link is IMDb. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 21:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be worth noting that the article title probably should be Stacey Gregg (the page with that name has been deleted a few times previously). Don't think she was ever known as Stacy (without the e). She was also known for roles in the US as Stacey Maxwell, eg in The Virginian, The Monkees and Batman. In the UK she's known for roles in Crossroads https://www.newspapers.com/image/893742133 and playing Sandy in Grease alongside Richard Gere eg https://www.newspapers.com/image/840906998 There's a few more hits at https://www.newspapers.com/search/results/?keyword=%22Stacey+Gregg%22++&region=gb-eng worth checking the British Newspaper Archive as well, see also this two-page articles from the TV Times in 1971 (page 8-9) https://mcmweb.co.uk/tvtimes/1971/Nov%206th%201971.pdf Piecesofuk (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Stacey Gregg she meets WP:NACTOR. She has also been credited as Stacey Jefferson and Stacey Richardson. As well as voicing the roles mentioned in the current article, she played Daffy in all episodes of Tottering Towers and Nurse Baxter in 23 episodes of Crossroads from 1977-1978. On stage, she played Sandy opposite Richard Gere in the British premiere of Grease (musical), first in Coventry and then on the West End. As well as the coverage found by Piecesofuk, there is coverage and information about more roles in the British Newspaper Archive. I'll add more info and sources to the article. There appears to be another Stacey Gregg, probably also notable, who is director of Here Before and co-creator/director of other shows. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christelle Bedran

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

Clear fail of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, contested prod. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beerware

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

Fails WP:GNG. Slight merge to open source is possible, but this page should not remain as-is due to a general lack of any notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Patrick Church (Wyandotte)

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

Apparently non-notable parish church in metro Detroit. The only source provided is an official parish history, which is obviously non-independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing usable except a local news piece on its 155th anniversary, which is not enough on its own for a WP:GNG pass as a standalone page. Open to a redirect to List_of_churches_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Detroit#South_Region, where it is mentioned, but bringing it to AfD since it has already been draftified and returned to mainspace without improvements, so I didn't think a WP:BLAR was appropriate in that situation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list article recommended by Dclemens1971. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camillo Bonelli

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

Nomination: Notability disputed. This article hasn't been expanded in 18 years. A list of captains regent of San Marino, 1701–1900 already exists and this article doesn't add any additional information. (Alternatively, I propose to redirect this page to that page.) MmeMaigret (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Shanahan (businesswoman)

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

As per WP:BLP1E, only known for winning The Apprentice (Irish TV series). LibStar (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Gynnild

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

This is just an awfully self-referential article, created by a WP:SPA, lacking any independent sources, and reading like a resume. BD2412 T 01:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Riverview Park, Berks County, Pennsylvania

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

Page was originally created in 2010 and has had only minor changes since then. It's never contained any references as far I can tell (NB: I'm still a newbie at reading the changelogs, so I could've missed one). It's been marked as "unreferenced" since 2019 without any references getting added. There's some decent text in the article, but I couldn't find any sources for the information, and the page is a near-orphan, only linked to by one other article (well, four total, but three are a list of places, a talk page, and a user page). I'd be happy for it to stick around if anyone can verify the info, but the user who generated the main text of the page doesn't exist anymore, so I don't know who'd be able to supply references. Local Internet User (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muhlenberg Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania. Djflem (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dany Haddad

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

Declined prod. The added source is just a small mention including a quote and not SIGCOV for meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Haddad, Electricity Fencing Champion Al-Safir Source Date: 12/30/1979 Dany Haddad Represents Lebanon in Fencing at the Mediterranean Games Al-Safir Source Date: 1979/8/3 Dany Haddad, Lebanese Fencing Champion Al-Safir Source Date: 1982/1/4 Dany Haddad, Independence Fencing Champion Al-Safir Source Date: 1986/12/5 Dany Haddad Wins the Expatriates Fencing Cup Al-Safir Source Date: 1980/2/15 Dany Haddad Wins the Christmas Cup in Fencing Al-Safir Source Date: 1980/12/29 Dany Haddad places 37th in the Canada Fencing Championship Source: As-Safir Date: May 2, 1987

Lebanese Fencing Championship: 22 competitors, Danny Haddad first Source: As-Safir Date: March 30, 1980

  • I haven't looked at all of them – only a few have worked for me, but there looks to be enough to write something decent here, and remember, all these stories were found only by looking at one paper. Lebanon has many papers, and the odds that those other papers wouldn't have covered him further, given what we know, is very small. The Newsday has some bits that could be used to expand as well. If kept, I'll expand this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, we need at least one other source since these results come from the same paper, but this is a very promising start. I've tried some searching with his Arabic name but haven't found anything else so far. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, the Newsday article appears to be more about the subjects father. Let'srun (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above source review. Kingsif (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luz Marina Geerman

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

Declined prod. The added source seems like a database listing. Lack of SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. Also does not meet WP:NATH. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glaze (slang)

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

Fails WP:NOTSLANG. Already covered in Glossary of Generation Z slang and https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/glaze . Also not notable enough to warrant its own page, as opposed to terms like Brain rot. Shioshiioo (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Return (2001)

[edit]
Operation Return (2001) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches like "Operation Return" and "Preševo" and similar search terms turn up negligible results, almost exclusively wiki mirrors. This isn't much of a surprise considering this operation consisted of troops essentially walking in unopposed after the Končulj Agreement, and can be described in a few sentences at Insurgency in the Preševo Valley. Fails WP:GNG. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Operation happened and it doesn't fail notability. Editor also seems to erase any conflict during Preshevo valley with claims like "ohh small skirmish that happened during small Incurgency" or "oh but this fails notability trust" GazuzBaguzz (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dalyboy

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I did a Google search of him and didn't find reliable coverage independent of him. All of the article's sources are primary sources.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per my review, he appears to meet some of the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. He has charted on Apple Music, received significant and consistent airplay according to several press sources, and produced and featured in a movie that was nominated for awards — with the nomination also mentioned on Van Vicker’s page. I would recommend a ‘keep’ while the article continues to be improved. Klighnight (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apple Music charts are WP:SINGLEVENDOR charts and cannot be used to establish notability. Dalyboy did not chart on any country's official music chart. This particular subject does not meet any criterion outlined in MUSICBIO or WP:GNG.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d like to seek clarification regarding his notability, as reflected on Van Vicker's Wikipedia page, specifically in relation to his film Heart Breaker’s Revenge, which he (Dalyboy) produced and starred in. The film reportedly received nominations and won awards in some categories at the San Diego Black Film Festival, Nafca, and the MPAH Awards.
    While I’ve noticed that some of these accolades are referenced in press coverage and on the Wikipedia pages of his colleagues, I’m unsure if they’ve been sufficiently highlighted on his own page to support his notability under the WP:NACTOR guidelines, particularly given his dual profile as both an actor and musician.
    Kindly advice. Klighnight (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any evidence that he starred in the film you mentioned. Per the film's IMDB page, Van Vicker's character went by the name Dalyboy Paul. I don't see Dalyboy Belgason listed among the film credits. Even if he he had a major role in this particular film, it won't justify a keep vote because this particular film fails WP:NFLIM and is not notable.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon reviewing the film’s IMDb page (see: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt16116480/fullcredits/), it’s clearly stated that Dalyboy Belgason is credited as the director, writer, and cast member.
    According to WP:NFILM, particularly the section on Other evidence of notability, point #3 states: “The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.” The said film has indeed received multiple significant nominations and has won awards in some categories, with Dalyboy himself playing a role in the production and as part of the cast.
    Given this, it raises the question of how the film would fail to meet this criterion when it evidently satisfies the award recognition requirement.
    Furthermore, under Inclusionary criteria in the same WP:NFILM guideline, it’s standard practice to mention other notable figures associated with the production. In this case, I have repeatedly referenced Van Vicker, who, based on his body of work and existing recognitions, clearly meets the WP:NACTOR notability threshold.
    From my review, both the film and its key cast members, including Dalyboy, appear to meet the necessary criteria for inclusion as outlined in the guidelines.
    Unless there’s another specific aspect or standard we might be overlooking, I’d appreciate it if you could kindly point it out for clarity. Klighnight (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Stop talking through an AI program and start talking through your own typed words. Nathannah • 📮 16:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, youre confusing yourself here. You claimed that Dalyboy starred in the film, Heart Breaker's Revenge. I debunked that by pointing out that he didn't per info on the film's IMBD page. You than proceeded to mention a different film altogether. Heart Breaker's Revenge and Ex Games are not the same films. Just for your info, IMDB isn't a reliable source. I cannot find a credible source online that mentions or discusses the film Ex Games. Both Heart Breaker's Revenge and Ex Games fail WP:NFLIM and are not notable. If you disagree with me, I challenge you to write separate articles about them and let's see if both articles won't be deleted. Which major award did the film Ex Games win?  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m honestly wondering which IMDb page you’ve been checking, because it’s clearly not the same one I’m referring to. Here — https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3756776/ — it’s publicly stated that Dalyboy Belgason wrote and directed the film. It’s also worth noting that this appears to be a duplicate of https://www.imdb.com/title/tt16116480/, and both are evidently the same movie. This is further confirmed by its official YouTube listing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDlBSXvxxEE — Heart Breakers Revenge (Van Vicker, Sarodj Bertin, Billy Williams) Ex Games.
    I honestly don’t understand why this back and forth is necessary. If there’s been an oversight on your part, it’s fair to acknowledge that and move on. I personally don’t have an issue with the page being deleted — I’m only pointing out verifiable facts based on the same WP:NFILM and WP:MUSICBIO guidelines which were cited as reasons for its deletion, but which, quite evidently, the subject meets in certain areas.
    This same film and its associated awards have also been accepted to establish notability on pages of his colleagues, so it’s difficult not to notice a double standard in this case. That said, I have no intention of dragging this further. Being asked to create a separate page for the film, when there appears to be clear systemic bias in how these guidelines are applied, isn’t something I’m interested in pursuing any longer.
    I’ll leave it at that. Klighnight (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this matters because IMDb is a user-generated and disqualified source; please find more reliable sources. Nathannah • 📮 19:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern with this entire process is that it now appears to be a poorly thought-out plan. It’s also evident that several of you are voting ‘delete’ without properly reviewing the page or considering the defense presented.
    Firstly, the nominator initially claimed Dalyboy wasn’t in the movie. I addressed this by providing evidence that Dalyboy produced, wrote, and acted in Heart Breaker’s Revenge. Secondly, while the nominator accepted (albeit indirectly) that the same film and its awards were sufficient for establishing notability for other actors involved, you're now insisting that Dalyboy must provide additional sources, which is a clear double standard and contradicts Wikipedia’s policy against systemic bias.
    Thirdly, it was claimed the article failed WP:MUSICBIO, but I demonstrated that it meets criterion #11 of that guideline.
    Frankly, the tone and direction of your responses today suggest a personal bias. Your initial comment about my writing style had no relevance to the points I raised, and your latest dismissive remark, “none of this matters”, further confirms that.
    Let me be clear, it’s acceptable if the article is ultimately deleted, but I have every right to challenge any reasoning I believe is flawed. Even the nominator has shown bias in this case, stating that if a movie page is created for the aforementioned movie, it will be deleted, before it even exists. Wikipedia is a community project, not owned by any of us, and most of us have careers beyond this platform. I’d prefer not to continue this back and forth, but I needed to state this for the record. Klighnight (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We require proper and reliable sources that meet our standards, and actual conversations about notability that don't involve LLM text. If you cannot do that or find sources that help prove the subject's notability, there's nothing more we can do here. And because Nigerian TV is a mess of pay-for-play as far as video presentations, there's no way to easily prove the subject meets MUSICBIO criterion 11. Nathannah • 📮 22:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, why would a Cuban join the American army? You realize how that makes no sense at all, I hope. Nathannah • 📮 22:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the claim that Nigerian TV and radio media operate entirely on a payola system is not only insulting to the industry but also to the broadcasters, anchors, and journalists working there. I don’t know what personal issues you have with the Nigerian media, but this reinforces my earlier point, both you and the nominator (also appearing to be Nigerian) only nominated this article for deletion because it was written by and about a Nigerian. It reeks of bias and a lack of fair opportunity.
    Even major platforms like Forbes and international media sometimes accept paid features, would it then be fair to say everything on those platforms is paid for? Generalizing like this is unreasonable.
    As for the subject of this article, I never claimed he had TV plays since I couldn’t verify that. I clearly referenced his significant rotation on a national radio station, and even a basic X (Twitter) search of the track would show it got airplay on multiple national stations. Does that mean every station was paid? That’s part of the systemic bias I’m addressing. This is enough to prove he meets criterion 11 of MusicBio. A quick check on X will show more national radio stations playing his songs. If this same criterion is valid for determining notability for foreign artists, why should you then decide a Nigerian artist be exempt? Is there any rule stating certain countries are excluded?
    Lastly, regarding your claim about a Cuban joining the U.S. Army, a simple check would’ve shown that U.S. permanent residents can enlist (https://www.usa.gov/military-requirements). If he met those criteria, it’s valid.
    I’ve already cited one source for his award via a colleague’s page yesterday and will continue adding more independent coverage as I find them.
    Gracias. Klighnight (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You’ve openly admitted that he meets criterion #11 of WP:MUSICBIO, but insist it won’t count because the national radio rotations happened in Nigeria. This clearly highlights bias in your judgment, denying him the same standard others have benefitted from. Klighnight (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We're asking for sources to airplay. Solid, reliable sources. Please add them, because we don't accept hearsay. And for you to think I was attacking the entire Nigerian broadcast industry because of a few bad apples is a serious reach. Nathannah • 📮 14:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment — “And because Nigerian TV is a mess of pay-for-play as far as video presentations, there’s no way to easily prove the subject meets MUSICBIO criterion 11” was unfairly broad. It implies the entire Nigerian broadcast industry operates on payola, which isn’t accurate. If you’d said “some”, it wouldn’t have raised concern. Nigeria has produced exceptional broadcasters now thriving at BBC, CNN, and other reputable platforms abroad, despite isolated issues in parts of the industry.
    Also, there’s a cited source, an independent report from P.M. News, confirming the song’s strong rotation on Beat FM, a respected national station with UK presence. Further checks on X (Twitter) also show airplay across major stations like City 105.1FM, Wazobia FM, Cool FM, Rhythm FM, and Soundcity Radio. Unless we’re suggesting all these outlets operate under a questionable system, dismissing this airplay isn’t balanced.
    For reference, here are tweets from the official handles confirming the airplay:
    1. https://x.com/city1051/status/1890009399076229547?s=48&t=uwGCvYqxVterevcLcN6PBg
    2. https://x.com/wazobiafmabuja/status/1887096848227172444?s=48&t=uwGCvYqxVterevcLcN6PBg
    3. https://x.com/thebeat999fm/status/1876566863070789853?s=48&t=uwGCvYqxVterevcLcN6PBg
    4. https://x.com/coolfmabuja/status/1880205277569642514?s=48&t=uwGCvYqxVterevcLcN6PBg
    5. https://x.com/937rhythmfm/status/1880327728676892981?s=48&t=uwGCvYqxVterevcLcN6PBg
    6. https://x.com/thebeat97abj/status/1880510151410503871?s=48&t=uwGCvYqxVterevcLcN6PBg
    7. https://x.com/coolfmnigeria/status/1875201079740346483?s=48&t=uwGCvYqxVterevcLcN6PBg
    8. https://x.com/soundcity985fm/status/1869128239362478534?s=48&t=uwGCvYqxVterevcLcN6PBg
    While X posts aren’t standalone sources for notability, they reflect public records from verified national radio accounts. Klighnight (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That site is not a proper source (they're merely social media feedbots listing what is 'now playing' on a radio station without any elaboration). Please read WP:RELIABLE. Nathannah • 📮 19:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My challenge remains your insistence on taking down this article. I’ve emphasized repeatedly that you’re free to do so, but I’m setting a precedent here. Since you joined this conversation, you’ve either downplayed my contributions or indirectly discredited my country’s media.
    1. You claimed the subject failed WP:MUSICBIO. I pointed out that if Apple Charts is WP:SINGLEVENDOR, then criterion #11 applies, instead of acknowledging this, you dismissed Nigerian media as payola-driven.
    2. I highlighted that this subject is also an actor-producer. The nominator wrongly claimed otherwise, and I provided IMDb proof of his credited roles in an award-nominated film, yet no acknowledgment, after you both argued.
    3. Every argument you raised, I’ve countered with evidence. Rather than correct the nominator for a poorly reviewed nomination, you doubled down.
    4. You made, deleted, and rephrased your last comment, while i carefully addressed each with facts. The PM News article is an independent, credible source widely used across the encyclopedia, the national rotation he enjoys was clearly noted in the article, with a cited source from the media outlet. Unless, of course, you’re suggesting that this media organization also operates a payola system. Alongside, in my last comment i showed you visible proofs from X of his radio airplay’s from verified stations (which you’ve seen), and i believe is enough to strengthen his notability.
    At its core, this entire conversation reflects systemic bias, something I’ve respectfully called out. The subject meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NACTOR as written, and countless articles have stood on less.
    Cheers Klighnight (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even in my previous comment where I shared evidence from X showing several national radio stations playing his song, I clearly stated, “While X posts aren’t standalone sources for notability, they reflect public records from verified national radio accounts.” Additionally, I’ve pointed out that the article itself cites a reliable source confirming the national rotation.
    Yet, each time a request for information is met with verifiable facts, you acknowledge the subject meets that particular criterion, but because you’re intent on seeing the article taken down, you continue to shift the goalpost by asking for more. Klighnight (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point you're bludgeoning the discussion, so unless you'd like to follow our advice and add reliable sources, I've said what I need to. There was additional context I added to my last response, and nothing was removed. Nathannah • 📮 00:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can’t claim bludgeoning when I’ve consistently provided everything you’ve asked for. It’s important for me to emphasize certain points while addressing your requests. This is the same issue I’ve pointed out before, and now, once again, you’ve raised a claim of WP:BLUD.
    That said, I do appreciate that you retracted your earlier statement about payola (which I previously highlighted) and took the time to explain the reason behind your comment, its deletion, and rephrasing.
    With that out of the way, I’ve now cited another source I found to help support notability under WP:MUSICBIO criterion #11.
    Cheers! Klighnight (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there anywhere written in the encyclopedia’s guidelines that I cannot use an AI tool like Grammarly to ensure my writing is clear and properly structured? He highlighted certain requirements he considered in assessing whether the page is notable or not. I’m simply clarifying the specific parts of those same criteria that the subject meets — is that too much to do?
    Even going by the same WP:MUSICBIO guideline, the subject appears to satisfy criterion #11: "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." The details supporting this are already available on his page. Klighnight (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Nixleovel (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria and Cuba. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources for the subject's notability or any of their song's performances (with the article creator talking about the subject's films, which are not noted at all in the article). Nathannah • 📮 16:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep: We generally don't count Apple Music charts towards notability but the balance of coverage seems more about this fact, than the usual flowery coverage from Nigerian sources. sources 2, 5 and 11 I suppose, this isn't a strong keep, but better than most we see here Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your vote. You can check the page, they’re already attempting to vandalize it using IP accounts, with other global editors reverting the changes on the main and talk page. This clearly shows bias and a targeted attack on the page. It’s a failed plot, and that’s why I’m even responding. Klighnight (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Two_days_ago&oldid=675207308"