Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

25 June 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 24	June 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Mambila Beverages Nigeria Limited

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

Doesn't look like this company meets WP:NCORP. The sources are all just business listing sites and no in-depth or significant coverage from independent, reliable media. Junbeesh (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nigeria. Junbeesh (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Chizoba Vincent

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

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

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

KOSPINT

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Oyeniyi

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Sultan Abdul Samad, Petaling Jaya

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

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

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

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

Swineherd

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

bare dicdef plus trivia --Altenmann >talk 05:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think a prose article could be created out of this. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Out of this" you cannot. Rehashing trivia leaves them trivia. But to expand,... --Altenmann >talk 01:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryushin Handa

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

So, this article was previously deleted under G11 and A7. I'm not tagging it for speedy again since it kind of makes a claim of importance but honestly, it still doesn't look like it meets the bar for notability. Most of the references are either not reliable, not independent, or not secondary. The few reliable sources that are included only mention the subject briefly, without any substantial focus or in-depth coverage. Junbeesh (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Junbeesh (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dávid Boldižár

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Slovakia. Joeykai (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Etete

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

Fails WP:NBUSINESS as sources are trivial mentions of the subject. Only one source from a WP:RS is in the article, the rest are primary sources and trivial mentions as CEO of a company. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- ThisDay profiled him in an interview, praising Century Group’s “capacity building” and Local Content impactprnewswire.com+15thisdaylive.com+15kenetete.com+15.
- Nigeria NewsDirect ran a feature titled “Ken Etete: The dependable Oil and Gas CEO”, detailing his acquisition of an FPSO and his leadership of one of Nigeria’s largest indigenous oil‑service firmsthisdaylive.com+2nigeriannewsdirect.com+2businessworld.africa+2.
- Business World Africa covered Century Group’s $15 million acquisition of the FPSO Sendje Berge, noting that Etete’s firm is “one of Nigeria’s biggest oil servicing company” and “the first domestic energy infrastructure provider to fully own and manage two FPSOs” kenetete.com+15businessworld.africa+15nigeriannewsdirect.com+15.
- BusinessDay interviewed him on how Century Group champions local content in Nigeria’s energy sectorsowshea.org+11businessday.ng+11thisdaylive.com+11.
- Africa Oil & Gas Report spotlighted his organic expansion over 20 years, highlighting his problem-solving leadershipafricaoilgasreport.com+1sowshea.org+1.
- Africa Intelligence examined his strategic handling of Erin Energy's OML 120 fallout, showcasing his negotiation skills in complex deals africaintelligence.com These are feature-level coverage from independent outlets
Aris1601 (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acacia Highway

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

Unsourced since 2019. Normally I'll just quietly redirect this to its main article Natalio Bacalso Avenue but I can't find sources that have "Acacia Highway" as a prominent or notable section of this particular Avenue. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 06:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ba. (band)

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

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

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

Trybooking

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

The sources are terrible with not independent reliable and broad topic coverage. This is not a notable company, at least for Wikipedia. Let zoom to some particular sources: [1] this one is a routine announcement on the not very reliable and quite niche website; [2] the same with this - it's not a reliable coverage, nor a reliable website and we need multiple sources (not a series of news from 1 website). [3] this one is almost good, aside from the fact it's slightly overfocused on the citations from the company members, but it could be okay. [4] this one is a reliable but not providing significant coverage, some interview citations and general information focused on the 10 anniversary date. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yutaka Kobayashi

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

all of these links are mostly dead links, except for the link to Yutaka_Kobayashi_(actor). for a disambiguation page, this is bad User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the politician is mentioned in the constituency article, the actor has an article, the fictional character is discussed in the plotline, and there is some value in the kind of article which disentangles people likely to be confused - though the announcer and businessman should really be removed if no-one can find a sourced mention to include them in their target articles. PamD 07:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra Nath Mahto

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

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

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

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

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

Catholic theology on the body

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kolej Vokasional Ipoh

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

Previously considered at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sekolah Menengah Teknik Ipoh Persiaran Brash , however we are now much stricter on notability as per WP:NSCHOOL. This is an unreferenced article. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete no references, almost no information about the school (number of students/faculty, what does it teach etc so the article is not useful either. Finally, no indication of any notability at all. --hroest 15:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of regional news websites of Jharkhand

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

Contested draftification. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:LISTPURP; only one of the list entries, Prabhat Khabar, is a notable news website specifically based in Jharkhand. The article creator also made The Real Khabar which is up for deletion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Internet, and Jharkhand. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine jade culture

AfDs for this article:

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

This article appears to be some combination of WP:OR and pure fabrication, and I'm not sure where the balance lies. Three sources ("Neolithic interaction between Taiwan and the northern Philippines: the evidence of jade mining and exchange"; "Maritime Jade Road: The Neolithic long-distance exchange of nephrite in Southeast Asia"; and "The Archaeology of the Philippines: The Past of the Other Filipinos") appear to be completely made up or perhaps hallucinated by an LLM. They do not come up in any search results and the one with a link goes to a different source. The actual sources do not describe a jade culture specific to the Philippines but rather focus broadly on the jade trade across SE Asia ([5], [6]), make a passing mention ([7] or do not discuss jade at all ([8]). My WP:BEFORE search does not indicate this is a notable topic deserving a standalone page. An AfD discussion earlier this year resulted in a "delete" on WP:TNT grounds, and I'd argue that applies here. (This recreation has survived G4 deletion and is likely just over the line of additional users' substantial edits to survive a G5, which would otherwise apply since its creator is a sockpuppet.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Archaeology, and Philippines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Toadspike, @Bearian, @Lenticel, @143.44.193.226 and @Chipmunkdavis, who participated in the first AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think the logic behind the previous consensus still holds... None of the new material addresses the significant concerns raised. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete: previous consensus still applies here in my view, and the article reads like LLM output. hallucinated sources are a bad sign. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 04:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also: the article uses the term "culture" incorrectly (see archaeological culture), which is further indication that this is not a real archaeological topic defined in scholarship. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 04:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reading is that G5 still applies, no additional substantial edits have been made. It's an interesting rub that WP:G4 was declined because an llm rewrote the page. CMD (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis Let's just say I've had G5s declined before for "additional substantial edits" on this scale, so I'm wary of nominating anything unless the other users' edits are pure gnoming. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's best that we don't use material that might have been hallucinated by AI --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This is the same fabrication as last time. Since this appears to be a target for nationalist POV-pushing, I strongly suggest SALTing as well. Toadspike [Talk] 06:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fullarton Road

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Insufficient sourcing with government map layers, google maps and street directory. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nomination. Unnotable road which goes for a whole 6.9 km. TarnishedPath^talk 07:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 07:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Insurance Academy

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

I don't see any sources by which to judge the school to be notable, with WP:NCORP being applicable to this private business institution. The sole reference in the article seems to be lost, but based on its title ("NIA: 100% placement with highest package of Rs 10.5 lakh per annum") and what had been referenced to it, it seems to have been a PR-push. (I don't think independent media are going out on their own to examine insurance academy placement rates and report on them.) Largoplazo (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, and India. Largoplazo (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NIASOM, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The prior deletion is sufficiently old; I believe it now qualifies under WP:NORG. It is a governmental unit of India created in 1980. It presently necessitates further citations to enhance its notability. Promotional content is an issue that can be reduced.CresiaBilli (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not finding such sources to cite. Largoplazo (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:SOURCESEXIST. You have not identified any actual coverage. One of many throw away boilerplate !votes from this individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to gather more thorough input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not add comments (WP:VAGUEWAVE) at afd without any analysis.. As I mentioned in my vote for "Weak Keep," there are not a lot of resources available on the web. On the other hand, I have made an effort to locate references that might offer more waitage in order to satisfy Notability Standards.. [9], [10], and [11].. CresiaBilli (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't tell from the language and subject matter that these are PR placements, not business journalism? As I noted in my nomination, actual news writers aren't tracking and then marveling at the annual job placement rates of new graduates from individual trade schools. And the first of these is attributed to Mediawire, a press release distribution agency. Largoplazo (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last attempt to reach quorum
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FC St. Louis

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

Redirect to Women's Premier Soccer League as I am unable to find much of any coverage of this team after searches on Google and Newspapers.com, let alone enough to warrant a standalone article. JTtheOG (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Missouri. JTtheOG (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just found a huge article about them on ProQuest, searching for "FC St. Louis" and then "soccer". (Log in to ProQuest via Wikipedia Library first and link should work.) Don't have time right now but looks like there is more. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Old Oyo

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

The sources cited in this article don't support the idea that the sack of the city was a battle at all. In fact, after the Battle of Ilorin the inhabitants evacuated the city to avoid a brutal sack, and Ilorin forces "sacked" an entirely empty town. This content belongs on Oyo-Ile rather than in a standalone page. Catjacket (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Nigeria. Catjacket (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Military. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why this was marked for deletion? This fall wasThe history of the Yorubas : from the earliest times to the beginning of the British Protectorate - https://archive.org/details/historyofyorubas00john/page/266/mode/2up?q=katunga (archived so anyone can read) page266 & 267. clearly narrates why oyo, or katunga fell. There was a resistance, and it was a battle-esque that led to the fall. Though it fell for other reasons, mostly because of ilroin, and people deserting it. And all the towns "any allegiance to Oyo, and hence Gbodo was besieged" - Page 260. So again can you explain why this is going on deletion? The same book is one of, if not the most documented histories of the Yoruba People, and is also on Google books, you can find this everywhere > https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_of_the_Yorubas_from_the_Earl/RL7WAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PR19&printsec=frontcover . I put great work, and a lot of hours, of research, and reading for my wikipedia pages, why are they consistently being nominated to get taken down? I have a smear campaign against me. And i would liek to appeal this, Please! Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't mean to discredit the work that you're doing, and I'm certainly not trying to smear you. I just think that the content that you've put on Sack of Old Oyo would be better placed on Oyo-Ile rather than on a standalone page. Samuel Johnson is pretty clear that Old Oyo was cleared out of almost all of its inhabitants and their belongings before the Ilorin troops showed up. Akinwumi Ogundiran and Stephen Akintoye agree. So it wasn't a battle, and whether or not it was a sack is debatable IMO since there was little or no population in the town at the time. But just because there isn't a standalone page doesn't mean the content doesn't matter. It should just be on Oyo-Ile, where it'll be easier to find anyway.

As for your other articles that have been nominated for deletion, I'd be happy to help you get Battle of Pamo, Mugbamugba War and Battle of Aboh up to Wikipedia standards if you'd like. I just finished reading Ogundiran's Yoruba: A New History and Akintoye's A History of the Yoruba People, and they both could be useful. Catjacket (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't tihnk you're trying to discredit my work, but when you're splitting hairs over things that are miniscule, and saying a wikipedia page doesn't deserve to exist, I believe so. The fall or "sack" of Old Oyo (also referred to as Katunga) represents a major turning point in Yoruba history. As documented in The History of the Yorubas by Samuel Johnson (pages 260, 266–267), the event was not merely a peaceful abandonment, but part of a gradual disintegration exacerbated by political fragmentation, internal rebellion, and eventual military incursions. While some inhabitants had fled, Johnson explicitly notes resistance and a form of confrontation with Ilorin forces. This process, whether described as a "sack" or a strategic collapse, has been characterized as both military and political in nature, warranting more than just a paragraph in a general article on Oyo-Ile. Your argument would be fine, if you say maybe change it from "Sack of Katunga" to abandoment, or desertification. But again, that shouldn't remove the fact, that this is more than credible to be a wikipedia page. And the fact i cited multiple times arguably the most detailed pre-colonial history about Yorubas, should show this is is a legitimate page, with a historical goal.

As for helping me get the battle of pamo, mugbamugba war, and aboh, up to wikipedia's standards, please let me know. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page covers the general overview of the sacking of the capital, this event basically marks the point at which the very decisive collapse of the empire's political center in the 1830s fell. But the page might need a little rephrasing since calling it a battle might oversimplify the event, since it was less of a single battle and more a series of invasions, etc, and eventual abandonment of the city around 1835–1837. But it's important to note that the term "sack" in historical contexts does not require the presence of a battle or active defense, since the sacking of a city refers to the looting and destroying, or even razing of a city at times, often after it has been abandoned or conquered.[12] Considering the symbolic and political importance of the town, even if the citizens of the town fled or didn't flee, there would still be valuable resources, possessions, and also infrastructure left behind. The invading army could still seize these assets and leave the city stripped of its wealth and resources. Whether there was an actual pitched battle in the area is secondary to the fact that its fall marked the end of the Oyo Empire itself. Also, sources in the article support the term “sack,” evidenced in Samuel Johnson’s History of the Yorubas "Oyo at length capitulated and the Ilorin troops entered and sacked the city. Oyo was plundered of nearly everything, but no captives were made excepting some Oyo beauties who were carried away with the spoils." [13] Also, Wikipedia hosts many pages about historical events that involved little fighting but had a massive political impact so the Sack of Old Oyo, as the final act of a once-dominant West African empire, clearly meets this precedent. The page needs a simple reframing since sack seems to be a problem, maybe fall or siege would be better.Bernadine okoro (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your feedback. I think your proposal to reframe the page to clarify that there was not an active defense or population present is a possible compromise. Perhaps renaming it to 'Evacuation of Old Oyo' would be more accurate than 'sack', since it was the fleeing inhabitants who stripped the town of valuables more than the invaders. But even in that instance, I think it fails the WP:NOTE test and would be better as a section on the Oyo-Ile page. After all, Johnson only dedicated 2 sentences to the whole event: "The citizen's fearing that he would receive re-inforcement from Ilorin did not wait to try any further conclusions ; the great metropolis was deserted, some fled to Kihisi, some to Igboho, and some even to Ilorin. As it was not a flight from an enemy in pursuit many who reached Kihisi and Igboho safely with their family returned again and again for their household goods and chattels till one Agandangban went and told Lanloke that Oyo had been deserted, and the latter proceeded immediately to plunder, and carry away what was left by the citizens."

One of your examples, in fact, illustrates my point nicely. The sack that Johnson is referring to on page 217 is not the final fall of the city, but rather one that took place earlier, during the initial rise of Ilorin. A page called 'Sack of Old-Oyo' should probably be about this first sacking rather than the later abandonment, but we don't have enough information about either 'sacking' to merit a standalone page, as far as a I know. Catjacket (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful reply and for engaging in this discussion with care and good faith. I see your point regarding the earlier reference to a “sack” on page 217 of The History of the Yorubas, and I agree that it’s important to distinguish between the various phases of Old Oyo’s decline—particularly the initial incursion during the rise of Ilorin and the final abandonment of the capital. However, I would argue that the cumulative process—including military action, desertion, and political collapse—forms a historically significant event that is often collectively referred to (in both academic and public discourse) as the "fall" or "sack" of Old Oyo. To clarify, the article I created focuses not just on a single "battle" or isolated event, but on the entire chain of events—including the Ilorin campaigns, the resistance described in Johnson (pp. 260, 266–267), and the subsequent loss of hegemony over subordinate towns like Gbodo. In this context, the term “sack” may be interpreted as a figurative description of collapse due to sustained conflict and internal disintegration, not necessarily a single moment of conquest like a classic battlefield engagement. I also believe the topic merits a standalone article for several reasons: Academic treatment: Authors like Akinwumi Ogundiran (Yoruba: A New History) and Stephen Akintoye treat the fall of Old Oyo as a distinct, analyzable phenomenon in Yoruba political and military history—even if it's complex and unfolds over time. Public interest and educational value: Many readers search for the fall of Old Oyo as a standalone subject, not just as a subsection of a broader article. Having a dedicated page improves accessibility, clarity, and depth. Title flexibility: If the term "Sack of Old Oyo" causes confusion or implies a narrow focus, I am more than open to renaming the article to something more neutral and descriptive, such as “Fall of Old Oyo”, “Collapse of Oyo-Ile”, or “Decline of the Oyo Empire’s Capital”. Incompleteness ≠ Non-notability: While the primary sources may not offer precise dates or a blow-by-blow account of either “sack,” that doesn't diminish the notability or historical impact of the event. Wikipedia hosts many articles about gradual collapses or unclear sequences of events, particularly when multiple reputable sources discuss them in depth. I welcome collaboration to clarify the scope and strengthen the sourcing. But I believe that merging this content into Oyo-Ile would oversimplify a pivotal transformation in Yoruba history. A separate article—properly framed, titled, and sourced—allows space for nuance and invites further expansion. Thanks again for your time and feedback. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

”Keep I respectfully disagree with the nomination for deletion of the article titled "Sack of Old Oyo". While I appreciate and understand the concerns raised, I believe the topic merits its own dedicated page based on historical significance, available sources, and the guidelines for notability outlined by Wikipedia. The fall or "sack" of Old Oyo (also referred to as Katunga) represents a major turning point in Yoruba history. As documented in The History of the Yorubas by Samuel Johnson (pages 260, 266–267), the event was not merely a peaceful abandonment, but part of a gradual disintegration exacerbated by political fragmentation, internal rebellion, and eventual military incursions. While some inhabitants had fled, Johnson explicitly notes resistance and a form of confrontation with Ilorin forces. This process, whether described as a "sack" or a strategic collapse, has been characterized as both military and political in nature, warranting more than just a paragraph in a general article on Oyo-Ile.The Johnson text is a foundational source on Yoruba history, widely recognized and cited by scholars and available publicly through Archive.org and Google Books. Other sources, including Akinwumi Ogundiran’s Yoruba: A New History and Stephen Akintoye’s A History of the Yoruba People, further contextualize this event. While interpretations may vary slightly between scholars, the event is consistently recognized and discussed in scholarly literature, fulfilling Wikipedia’s requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources.Wikipedia regularly hosts dedicated articles for pivotal historical events, even when closely related to larger subjects (e.g., individual battles, uprisings, or sackings). Keeping the Sack of Old Oyo as a standalone article allows for more comprehensive treatment, sourcing, and debate around its nature, without overburdening the main Oyo-Ile page. Furthermore, this enables clearer navigation and improves reader access to deeper historical information.As the article’s creator, I invested considerable time in reading, interpreting, and referencing multiple scholarly sources to develop content that meets Wikipedia’s standards. I welcome collaborative editing and criticism in good faith and am happy to revise or restructure the article where needed. However, outright deletion risks disregarding both historical nuance and the labor involved in preserving underrepresented African historical narratives.

If the primary concern is scope overlap with the Oyo-Ile article or concerns about whether "sack" is the most accurate term, I am open to renaming the article (e.g., “Fall of Old Oyo” or “Collapse of Oyo-Ile”) and improving source attribution and language clarity. But deletion is not the ideal solution for a historically attested and sourced subject.

The event commonly referred to as the “Sack of Old Oyo” represents a complex, consequential episode in Yoruba and West African history. It is sufficiently covered in reliable sources and meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria. I respectfully request that the page not be deleted but instead improved collaboratively. Thank you for your time and consideration. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC) Oluwafemi1726[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beenox

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. The most prominent coverage I found is after the acquisition from gamesindustry.biz. A list of games alone is as good as a games developed by Beenox category. I suggest a redirect to Activision and perhaps a merge of the paragraph of the founder departure and new office. IgelRM (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. IgelRM (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Activision as nominated based on WP:NCORP. Studio articles that function as little else as lists of games don't demonstrate the notability of the developer without deeper coverage - see thoughts at WP:NOTWORK. That coverage is not really there once you take out all the On X date, Beenox released Y title content. That said, it's not very weak, just not enough to justify an article on presented sourcing. Could be if more of the ilk like the GamesIndustry.biz coverage is found. This outlet seems to have had a porting role in a large number of high-profile games. Is there more out there? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The below sources have established the existence of coverage to warrant a keep. Thanks to @Tanonero: and @Hannes Röst: for taking a look and finding more sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vrxces: I am just curious, and I don't mean to be confrontational, but wouldn't it have been easier if you had looked for the sources yourself and ascertained the potential notability of the article, instead of opening a deletion process? I missread the thread. --Tanonero (msg) 13:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough history to show the company's progression and its relevance within the game industry. There is also plenty of coverage on GamesIndustry.biz to demonstrate the company's notability and that can easily be integrated into the article, for instance, 1, 2, 3, and 4 and many more. Wikipedia would gain nothing by deleting this article. --Tanonero (msg) 15:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that I linked the 3 source in my nomination already. Further the 1 source is an interview about places to work, which generally don't add notability. The 4 source is an interview about Activision and licensed games.

From a WP:BEFORE, the founder Dominique Brown has more coverage than this company. What this AFD tries to achieve is more equal appliance of policy that isn't a video game database. IgelRM (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think there is enough there to justify an article, some more articles from different sources [14] [15] [16] and the article contains more than just a list of titles. --hroest 18:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first 2 sources are press releases and after Activision's acquisition. Edit Correction: the 3 source is about Activision and the developer staffing up for Call of Duty, not particular significant? IgelRM (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Activision#Studios, that one Gamesindustry.biz article cited by nominator seems to be the only piece of significant coverage. Interviews and press releases are considered primary sources. GameRant article is by WP:VALNET so it shouldn't be used for notability but it's also fairly standard coverage of personnel hiring, trivial coverage per WP:ORGTRIV. --Mika1h (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sources to document the studio's notability, though it needs some updating. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give an example or is a source review table necessary? IgelRM (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like a consensus to Keep but the nominator suggested having a source analysis table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:IgelRM
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/meet-the-best-places-to-work-in-canadas-games-industry?page=2		Interview with the studio head for being nominated for "Best Places To Work" by the publication	✘ No
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/beenox-to-open-new-studio-in-montreal			✘ No
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/activisions-beenox-to-create-more-original-titles			✔ Yes
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/activisions-reputation-probably-unfair-says-spider-man-developer		Interview with the studio head about Activision	✘ No
https://gamerant.com/activision-beenox-call-of-duty-support/	~	"According to a report by Benzinga", which means a press release per linked "Source: Benzinga" at the end of the article.	✘ No
https://www.polygon.com/2012/12/14/3767352/beenox-founder-leaves		According to press release, 3 sentences article.	✘ No
https://www.macworld.com/article/166245/beenox-2.html			✔ Yes
https://www.macworld.com/article/174622/beenox-4.html		Few sentences on announcements with Mac focus.	✘ 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}}.

. IgelRM (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on the table?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Christian School (Morgantown, West Virginia)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school article, and added a ref. I don't see WP:THREE instances of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, however, and don't think the school meets WP:NCORP, WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Redirect to Morgantown, West Virginia#Private schools is a possibility. Tacyarg (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and West Virginia. Tacyarg (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least Weak Keep. Ideally, I'd like to see more in depth coverage from sources from further away, but there's a lot of documentation and enough I could find from other newspapers in the state.
- "Trinity, St. Francis Schools Expand in Morgantown" (Feb 2006)[17] State Journal, Charleston
- "Trinity Christian School Breaks Ground on New Wing" (November 2004)[18] Dominion Post
- Residents Question Trinity Christians Impact (August 2004)[19] Dominion Post
- "Trinity Christian opens new campus, transportation issues arise"(April 2005)[20] Dominion Post
- "Trinity Adds Finishing Touches" (August 2005)[21] Dominion Post
- "Trinity for sale to highest bidder: Bank looking to sell bankrupt Christian school" (May 2010) [22], Dominion Post
- "Bank wants to sell bankrupt private school in Morgantown"(May 2010) [23], Charleston Gazette
- "Trinity to keep school: Reaches deal with bank for $5 million" (July 2010) [24] Dominion Post
- "Prep Sports:: Morgantown Christian school getting ready to tackle football" (Jan 2009) [25]" Charleston Daily Mail
- More[26][27][28][29][30][31]

There are also hundreds of more routine sports articles, which actually makes it difficult to find the more in depth ones Jahaza (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as private school it will have to pass WP:NORG and I dont see any substantial in depth coverage from multiple independent sources. There is some coverage from a single newspaper but a lot is run of the mill and not in-depth, one single source is not multiple and trivial coverage of sports events does not constitute SIGCOV. --hroest
Weak keep - compared with most independent schools, this seems to get a lot of (at least local) media coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Weak arguments on both sides of the fence here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In situations like this, I would normally go to Newspapers.com for sources. However, content from that state is surprisingly scarce. Sources in old newspapers likely exist, but they are hard to find. BeanieFan11, you are much better at navigating the Newspaper Archive than me. Is there anything you can do? The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toshie the Nihilist

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

Non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. Showing at festivals is not notability. No sign of any independent reviews. Sockfarm creation. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of independent articles about the film in Japanese. It also has some notability in English, having been mentioned in Variety, on smaller independent sites like Boston Hassle, and on festival websites where it received awards. Given its coverage especially in Japanese media, I believe it’s valuable to make this information available in English. Wata78 (talk) 18:56, 13 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!} 23:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Matthew Chozick, contingent on its AfD. ~~Delete~~ The Variety article only discusses the film for two sentences and the Boston Hassle discusses it for three, neither of which constitutes significant coverage. (The Boston Hassle is probably unreliable anyway since many of its articles are written by volunteers.) The Cinefil article is an interview with the director. I'd consider Nikkan Sports the strongest source, but that's mostly quotes from the cast and crew. I don't see enough here to meet WP:GNG. Wata78, if you're referring to coverage in Japanese media that's not already in this article (or the version on Japanese Wikipedia), it'd be helpful to have that. hinnk (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is my recommendation, @Hinnk. For Nikkan Sports, there are not one but two articles covering the film, one of which offers more information about the movie itself. The same goes for Cinefil, which has an additional piece not mentioned above: here. There’s also coverage in print in the Tokyo cultural newspaper コミュかる, issue 69, and the film was featured on Natalie (website) here.

While the Variety article may not be a full review, it contains more than two lines since the director's comments are related.

The cast also merits some attention for their own notability. Tezuka Osamu Cultural Prize winner Taro Yabe deserves a page here, as does Hideo Furukawa, recipient of the Mishima Yukio Prize. Wata78 (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the other Nikkan Sports article? hinnk (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hinnk, one Nikkan Sports article is here and one is here. Same photo but different content. Wata78 (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Looking at those sources, the Cinefil article appears to be using promotional copy written by the director himself. The newspaper article is an interview with the director, plus a description of an exhibition that doesn't cover the film. To me, the three strongest sources are the Natalie article and the two Nikkan Sports articles. Of those, the Natalie article reads like a routine event announcement, and of the Nikkan Sports articles, this one is the only one that contains a little bit of analysis from the author instead of quoting the cast and crew. IMO, taken together these don't meet WP:GNG, and the fact that, a few years after release, we can't find reviews in reliable sources is a bit of a red flag to me. I've struck out my original recommendation since the title would still be a reasonable search term. hinnk (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @hinnk. Do you happen to read Japanese? Some of your interpretations seem a little off. For instance, the Cinefil article says it is written by the editorial team. And the newspaper piece doesn’t mention an exhibition.

About "reliable reviews," the reason you can't find them is because they don't exist in Japan like you're accustomed to in English. See this discussion. There is a cultural difference that prevents reviews from being much more than summary in Japan.

For establishing notoriety, the existence of international coverage, physical (not just online) media about the movie, and various awards also carries weight to me. Wata78 (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very little, I'm working with machine translation so please correct me if I'm misreading the source. The Cinefil article is labeled as being written by the editorial department, but it opens with a first-person introduction by Matthew Chozick. The newspaper isn't a translation issue though; I'm referring to the section labeled "Under24 Creator Exhibition" (in English) on page 4. hinnk (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Hinnk. Yes, it definitely looks like a machine translation issue with the Cinefil article—there’s no first-person introduction in the original. I also searched through both Nikkan Sports articles across all four pages and didn’t find any mention of the “Under24 Creator Exhibition.” Perhaps you saw that reference elsewhere? Wata78 (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to page 4 of the newspaper you mentioned (コミュかる), not Nikkan Sports. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but "Amerikahito tarento to shite Nihonte ゙ katsudō suru watashi, mashū chojikku…" reads as a first-person statement by Chozick.

Either way, we're optimistically looking at a second routine event description which like the Natalie article is based on the announcement of the domestic premiere, and still next to no WP:SIRS-type coverage discussing the film (a bit in the second Nikkan Sports article if you squint). As duffbeerforme touched on, we do need secondary sources to be able to make a proper article, and it's hard to get there using event descriptions, the award listings of some minor festivals, and statements by the cast and crew. hinnk (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unlike the second Cinefil or Natalie article, the コミュかる one includes an interview with the director, but it still is another independent source that is asking about the movie because of its notability. Again, if the concern is an absence of English-style reviews in Japanese media, they generally don’t exist for anything. That style of writing goes against Japanese cultural norms, so notability is better established through other means.

Anyway, thanks @Hinnk. Wata78 (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two additional independent English-language articles that mention the film without including interviews and offer some minor critical commentary.

One, from a Boston arts magazine, briefly notes its award win and comments on its excellence but lack of puppets: The Arts Fuse. The other, from a magazine in Tokyo, is positive about the film and its screening format: Metropolis. Wata78 (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am gathering all of the sources talked about in the conversation above so that I can make a judgement.

Moritoriko (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. "“Toshie the Nihilist” made an outstanding premier at the Academy Award and BAFTA, winning the Best Comedy Award at the New York International Short Film Festival." the entirety of the commentary about the film here. Not significant.

2. "ended up winning Best Short at BUFF; well earned, but not nearly enough puppets for me (none actually)." the entirety of the commentary about the film here. Not significant.

3. Heavily interview/Chozick quote based but there are some parts that could be described as commentary it could possibly be good enough for 1 source.

4. More quote based than the above source, fewer parts that can be described as commentary.

5. "The film, which has won numerous awards since premiering at the 2021 L.A. Shorts Intl. Film Festival, was developed and produced in Japan" the entirety of the commentary about the film here. Not significant.

6. Entirely an interview, not very focused on Toshie. Doesn't do much for notability for me.

7. Standard press release material that is already found in the Nikkan sources.

8. This is a local city newsletter and a direct interview. I don't think this grants notability.

I don't think this collection of sources is enough and I don't think any of the awards that it won are prestigious enough to grant notability themselves. Moritoriko (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Hafez El-Sayed

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Egypt. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging our Egyptian Olympians expert, @Canadian Paul:. Is there anything to find here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inner alignment

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

The article does not currently cite reliable sources. Current citations include the forums "LessWrong" and "AI Alignment Forum", and blog articles on "AISafety.info", Medium, and LinkedIn. A web search turned up the following primary source articles:

I am recommending this article for deletion since I could find no references to this concept in reliable secondary sources. Elestrophe (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 25 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ -- LWG ^talk 01:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Tumbling

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

Little to no evidence that this person was real or did any of the things this article describes. Might be a hoax based on the movie. Even if the movie is based on a real person, no indication that the information in this article is about the real person and not the character from the movie. Most/all of the sources cited aren't real sources. No useful results on Google. -- LWG ^talk 01:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Crime. -- LWG ^talk 01:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in lieu of a further explanation as to why this would be a hoax? Most of the sources are reliable news outlets from Google News Archive which is not falsifiable. There doesn't seem to be any proof that this is made up and the way the news articles are written it doesn't seem that way at all... just that there was a movie doesn't make it not real, and plenty of the sources are about the man, not the movie. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are either non-reliable and/or only relate to the movie. On closer examination of the Phillipine Inquirer sources I see that you are correct that this person definitely existed. At first glance they looked like tabloid coverage that was only tangentially related. On closer examination it is true that they are only tangentially related, but the issues seem resolvable by stubification instead of deletion. -- LWG ^talk 01:52, 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.

Sora Tanaka

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

Not meet WP:NBOX HumanRight 00:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HumanRight 00:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NBOX doesn’t have any prescriptive criteria for boxers; it defers to WP:SIGCOV. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this isn’t a vote and I haven’t even looked at the sourcing—absolutely no position on deletion. Just pointing out that NBOX lays out exactly zero criteria for boxers. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Boxing, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This can be reasonably fixed, and sources exist, WP:NBOX defers to WP:SIGCOV, which exists per reference section.

Tankishguy :)(: (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NBOX clearly states that a boxer is notable if they have ranked in the world top 10, making Tanaka fail NBOX. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 00:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly not ranked in world top 10 so WP:NBOX is not met. I'm not seeing the significant independent coverage the keep voters see, so I'm hoping they can explain it to me. All pro boxers get their fights covered, but not all boxers are WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Léo Legrand

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, only fewer sources added. Absolutiva (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and France. Absolutiva (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masala coffee recipe

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

doesn't meet WP:GNG, not adequately supported by independent sources Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and India. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. The external links feature a book that doesn't exist (The Spice Route). The article creator has repeatedly added links to an AI-generated cooking blog [32] [33] [34] and needs a stern talking-to. Astaire (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Astaire. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 01:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Intuition

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United States of America. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Applied Intuition has received significant independent coverage in reliable sources such as Reuters, Bloomberg, and TechCrunch. Easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Move for speedy keep. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 01:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redstar0005: It's all WP:CORPTRIV doing a Google for 'Applied Intuition {Reuters,Bloomberg,TechCrunch}'. If you have anything that's not trivial reporting, please provide it... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rich Smith, here are some! [35][36] (Reuters), [37][38] (Bloomberg), [39][40][41][42](TechCrunch). All of these articles are not just trivial mentions of Applied Intuition but are completely centered around them and their business activities. I could continue naming more satisfactory sources if you wish. I'm not sure if you were searching for the right things when you did, because all of these articles were easy to find. Again, I suggest that the article is kept. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Khabar

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

Unclear notability. No significant coverage of this Jharkhand-based news platform. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Jharkhand. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has a presence but lacks significant, reliable coverage. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 00:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a news medium in itself so why would any other news medium write about this Ranjeetsharmajournalist (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of news media, books, scholarly papers, etc. that write about other news media. Look at the sources for any article about a major newspaper, such as The Times of India. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NNEWSPAPER. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an WP:PROMOTIONAL article with WP:COI issues. Jumpytoo Talk 04:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author has a clear COI (UPE) and should never have created this in the main space. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]