Jump to content

Wikipedia:XfD today

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DELT)

Speedy deletion candidates

[edit]
Candidates for speedy deletion
Borlänge-Stora Tuna BK
User:Gashi Gani1944
User:Indranilch14899/sandbox
Jaisamand Wildlife Sanctuary
Sidhant Kapoor
List of Chilean singers
List of Vogue Portugal cover models
Draft:Matt Strauss
User:Noman Robin official/sandbox
File talk:NothPhilaStation.jpg
Ontario Health (disambiguation)
Plaything
Salman Kandi, Meshgin Shahr
Draft:Siege of Praaspa
Draft:Siege of Urmia (1534)
Draft:T with diaeresis
User:TopGun69420/ Edward W. Lucke III

Articles

[edit]
< May 30 June 01 >

Purge server cache

Jimmy Simpson (North Carolinian racing driver)

[edit]
Jimmy Simpson (North Carolinian racing driver) (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)

Not enough sources, solely secondary coverage from one database source. Finn Shipley (Talk) :) 01:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also could not find a single source that talks about this particular person besides the databases. Finn Shipley (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McCallister (disambiguation)

[edit]
Kevin McCallister (disambiguation) (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. Lists only one primary topic (that isn't even properly listed as the PT) and several similar-sounding names. Not sufficient at all for a DAB page. GilaMonster536 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Momodou Sarr (sprinter)

[edit]
Momodou Sarr (sprinter) (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. All the sources are databases/results and not SIGCOV for meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antioch, Switzerland County, Indiana

[edit]
Antioch, Switzerland 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)

This appears to be a short-lived 4th class post office named after a Methodist church which was almost half a mile north of the intersection, more or less across from its cemetery, which is still there. The church appears to have been torn down around 2005, but it is shown on older topos and can be plainly seen on aerials. County histories refer to the church but make no mention of a town, and there's nothing significant at the intersection. No evidence that this was an actual settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian Aid Distribution Program in the Gaza Strip

[edit]
Humanitarian Aid Distribution Program in the Gaza Strip (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 can't find any coverage of a program called the "Humanitarian Aid Distribution Program in the Gaza Strip". The article appears to be original synthesis that rebrands the activities of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as a standalone “program,” which is not how the sources cited are describing it. We should not treat loosely grouped actions as a coherent subject without explicit, sourced evidence. Anything useful here should be added to the article on Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. No redirect needed. Mooonswimmer 01:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nazakat Ahmad Ali Shah

[edit]
Nazakat Ahmad Ali Shah (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:BLP1E. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Peru bus disaster

[edit]
2013 Peru bus disaster (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) 🛸 23:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Harding

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Teresa Harding (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)

Just a year ago, this page was redirected following an AfD discussion due to lack of WP:GNG-qualifying coverage and a failure to pass WP:NPOL. The page has been recreated at much greater length but I am not seeing the kind of WP:SIGCOV we need to see. To the extent there is any secondary coverage here, it is either local coverage that is limited to her role as mayor or a mayoral candidate ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in WP:ROUTINE election coverage ([7], [8]). I am concerned that this article also fails WP:NOT by constituting WP:OR, considering the extensive use of WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, including official bios or statements ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]), primary source election results ([17], [18], [19]), and the subject's own Facebook posts ([20], [21], [22]). There is also a high likelihood of WP:SYNTH given the page creator's use of several sources that do not even mention Harding ([23], [24], [25], [26], [27]). I see no warrant for a standalone page here and seek a fresh consensus for a redirect to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There appears to be enough information to establish notability Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since the previous AfD, she did get a fair bit of national media coverage earlier this year for a brief period after the council tried to pass a rule to gag her: e.g. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. There's also this piece in The Australian, which is probably slightly better than anything the article currently cites. I'm not convinced yet that it's quite enough to satisfy GNG, but all of the recent corruption in the Ipswich council does mean there's a little bit more non-routine and non-local coverage than I'd otherwise expect. MCE89 (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am quite new to writing articles on Wikipedia, but this feels premature as I am currently in the process of completing this and clearly haven't finished it. As the first Mayor of Ipswich following the unprecedented dismissal of the entire council, Teresa Harding is undoubtedly a significant political figure, not only within her city but in Queensland local government more broadly. She assumed leadership at a time of crisis and undertook systemic reforms aimed at restoring public trust in local government – reforms that have received both national media attention and industry recognition.
    Harding’s creation of the Transparency and Integrity Hub was widely reported on as an Australian first in public sector accountability, and the platform has since gone on to win multiple awards for excellence in governance. Her leadership in transparency and open government has been cited as a model across local councils nationwide — this is not routine coverage. It's coverage directly tied to reforms that positioned Ipswich as a benchmark for integrity in public service.
    She has been profiled and quoted in national publications (e.g. The Australian, ABC News, and Brisbane Times) on issues beyond just local council matters, such as integrity, government reform, and the broader challenges facing local government post-administration.
    These are not WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or strictly WP:LOCAL stories. There is sustained, significant, and thematic coverage of Harding's efforts as a reformist figure in a city recovering from major scandal. Furthermore, WP:NPOL outlines that political figures merit a standalone article when they have held a significant office, especially when their work has attracted meaningful coverage. The role of Mayor of Ipswich — one of Queensland’s largest and most politically scrutinised cities — clearly meets this threshold. The fact that Harding's governance is the subject of national discussion and awards only further reinforces this.
    Yes, the article (like many local politician entries) includes primary sources — but these are verifiable and properly cited alongside reputable secondary sources. If you want more, allow me the oppurtunity TO add more. It is unreasonable to dismiss a subject’s notability purely because official council statements or bios are included for factual grounding. The argument of WP:SYNTH also does not apply where context is clearly and faithfully drawn from the cited material.
    To remove a page like this, particularly when Harding remains in office and continues to garner national attention, seems premature and contrary to WP’s mission of documenting notable public figures whose actions affect Australian governance.
    Let’s improve the article, not delete it. Remarka6le (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SYNTH absolutely applies where context is clearly and faithfully drawn from the cited material. If you are drawing context that's not present in secondary sources on Harding, you are engaged in original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, I believe your interpretation of WP:SYNTH is being applied too rigidly here. The policy does not prohibit contextually relevant information so long as each piece is verifiable and used within its intended scope. None of the sources in question ([23]–[27]) are being used to draw conclusions about Harding herself that are not explicitly supported by the sources. They are used to establish a critical and well-documented event: the sacking of Ipswich City Council.
    The policy on synthesis (WP:SYNTH) is only violated when sources are combined to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of them. But in this case, the sources all clearly state that the council was dismissed due to systemic misconduct, and that a period of administration followed. That is an undisputed historical fact, covered broadly and independently in reliable media — including at the national level. Stating that Harding was elected as mayor following that event is not original analysis; it’s chronology.
    Wikipedia:No original research even clarifies that "rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research." That’s precisely what’s been done here. There’s no leap in logic, no implied conclusion, and certainly no novel interpretation. It’s simply a well-sourced recounting of events that are directly relevant to Harding’s notability as the first post-dismissal mayor.
    What would constitute a violation is failing to cite those events and instead summarising them unsourced — which would make the article unverifiable. The argument that mentioning the context of her office constitutes SYNTH would set a troubling precedent: it would mean we couldn’t refer to major public events unless every article about every individual involved was named explicitly in the same source. That’s not how encyclopaedic writing works, nor how WP:NOR is intended to function. Remarka6le (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Even if there is more non-routine coverage, this is basically a promotional biography and not an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 15:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the concern around promotional tone, but I’d argue that’s a solvable issue through collaborative editing, not a reason for deletion or redirection.
    If there are parts of the article that read as promotional, strip back the tone, add balance, and bring in more neutral language where needed. That’s exactly what Wikipedia’s editing process is for. Deleting the entire article — especially when there is now more non-routine, nationally relevant coverage — feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
    Redirecting to List of Mayors of Ipswich also isn’t a constructive alternative. That page is a shell — it lacks meaningful detail, context, or the capacity to fairly represent Harding’s role. Collapsing a complex and award-winning tenure into a bullet point does a disservice to readers and the subject. Remarka6le (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of sources [23] to [27] — these are not being used to make claims about Harding personally, but rather to establish the extraordinary circumstances surrounding her election. As the first mayor following the dismissal of Ipswich City Council for systemic misconduct and corruption, Harding's role cannot be meaningfully understood without reference to that context.
The scale of the council’s dismissal is directly relevant to the significance of Harding’s office. It is not possible, nor responsible, to write about a reform mayor brought in after a scandal of this size without referencing the event that made her election necessary in the first place.
Wikipedia requires verifiability — I can’t simply say “she was elected after the council was sacked” without reliable sources to confirm that. That’s exactly what [23]–[27] provide. They document the reasons for the council’s dismissal and form the factual, contextual bedrock for understanding Harding’s tenure.
Removing those references or dismissing them as unrelated misunderstands how context works in biographical writing. Harding’s notability is inextricably linked to the fallout of the corruption scandal. That context isn’t WP:SYNTH — it’s essential, and well-sourced. Remarka6le (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: just being a local mayor does not mean a person qualifies for a Wikipedia article. The "best" articles here (ABC) were in the "local politics" section. I just don't think they're enough to show Wikipedia notability, since all local politicians receive at least some coverage. Also if you are new here, please familiarise yourself with WP:BLUDGEON. I do not think you are bludgeoning yet, and you are allowed to argue your point, but it is a good policy to know. SportingFlyer T·C 19:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If no secondary sources about Harding say that she was elected after the council was sacked, then Wikipedia shouldn't say that. To use primary sources or sources that don't mention her to make that claim about her is a form of WP:OR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The council’s dismissal is a well-sourced public fact. Using those sources to establish a timeline is not WP:OR — it’s verifiable background. No interpretation is being added. Saying “she was elected after the dismissal” is a factual, time-based statement that doesn’t require the dismissal and Harding to be in the same sentence in a source to be accurate, as long as both are independently cited. That’s consistent with policy. Remarka6le (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftification helps nobody if the article topic is not notable. Some clearer source analysis might help reach a consensus on this one way or another -
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 08:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – With respect, the claim that Teresa Harding is not notable remains an opinion — not a settled fact — and one that is not universally held in this discussion. She holds a significant office in Queensland’s 6th largest LGA and has received national coverage for substantive reform efforts, including Australia’s first Transparency and Integrity Hub.
It’s also worth noting that many other mayors from Queensland’s largest LGAs already have standalone articles:
Adrian Schrinner – Brisbane (1st)
Tom Tate – Gold Coast (2nd)
Peter Flannery (politician) – Moreton Bay (3rd)
Darren Power – former Mayor of Logan (4th)
Rosanna Natoli – Sunshine Coast (5th)
Teresa Harding – Ipswich (6th, under discussion)
Troy Thompson (politician) – Townsville (7th)
Geoff McDonald (mayor) – Toowoomba (8th)
Bob Manning (mayor) – Cairns (9th)
Many of these articles have remained in mainspace for years — including Peter Flannery’s, which has existed since 2020 — despite being far shorter, less sourced, and in some cases offering little more than routine electoral information. If those are considered acceptable, it sets a clear precedent for Harding’s article to be improved, not removed.
If there are concerns around tone, depth, or sourcing, draftification via AfC is a constructive middle ground. It allows those willing to improve the article the opportunity to do so, while ensuring it meets appropriate standards before returning to mainspace. Deletion or redirection is unnecessary and inconsistent in context. Remarka6le (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hence the relisting comment of 'if'. The point being that the place to establish consensus on notability is at AfD, not through a backdoor draftification, in my opinion. If the topic is notable, sending to draft should not be necessary, since AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. If it is not, there is no point in sending to draft. Of course, a consensus could still emerge to send to draft, but I'd like to see some further discusson wrt to notability. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also doesn't matter if other articles exist or not. Some may need to be deleted, some may be notable for other reasons. SportingFlyer T·C 13:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The reason for Draftification is to give a newish editor some time to understand WP:GNG requirements, clear out sources that aren't needed in the article, and clean up the article. Ideally they would do that via AFC, but since we are here now at AfD, but 1-2 weeks might not be enough time, hence recommending taking back to Draft. The most ideal is for editors !voting keep is to list the three best sources for notability. If these sources are deemed routine, it's unlikely there is enough for GNG/BASIC. Nnev66 (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed -- as nominator, I would be happy to have the redirect restored, but I am almost always willing to give a good-faith editor time to polish up an article that may not be ready for mainspace in its current form. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and restore redirect Seems to be the best course of action given the quality issues of the article. Remarka6le seems to be willing to improve it, and subject does appear to have received more news coverage since the last AfD. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to work on it under the guidance of, or in collaboration with, an experienced editor to ensure it's brought to a standard everyone is comfortable with. Remarka6le (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Loads of sources, so many knit-picking go on, do people forget we have WP:BASIC, this more than qualifies. I've seen far worse articles kept than this. multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Regards. Govvy (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article clearly satisfies WP:BASIC, with multiple independent, reliable, and non-trivial sources in national outlets like *The Australian* and *ABC News*. The notion that references to the council’s dismissal must specifically mention Harding's name in every article is a misapplication of WP:SYNTH. WP:BASIC exists precisely to prevent this kind of excessive pedantry from derailing articles about legitimately notable figures. The nomination leans heavily on WP:NOT, yet disregards that WP:BASIC alone is sufficient for inclusion. If the nominator, and those supporting the deletion submissiom, feel the article is too promotional in tone, they should address those concerns and improve the article, rather than seeking to remove one that clearly meets the minimum notability requirements. Given that the article satisfies basic notability criteria and the issue largely concerns tone or minor concerns about coverage, this call for deletion could be seen as an example of WP:Overzealous deletion. Wikipedia’s focus should be on improving articles to meet standards, rather than unnecessarily removing those that meet the minimum requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QLDLG (talk • contribs) 06:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, so if the main concern is the tone, wouldn’t the simplest solution be to just add {{ad}} to the page? That way, it flags the issue for others and encourages edits to bring the writing in line with a neutral point of view? Remarka6le (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination asks for redirection, not deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We’re currently in an Articles for Deletion debate, and redirecting this page to a list of Ipswich mayors is essentially a form of deletion. Remarka6le, I think adding the template is the way to go. While I disagree with the nominator’s reasons, I do agree that the tone could be improved. I see this article as a good candidate for WP:AQU — it has potential, and we should work on improving it rather than rushing to delete. WP:BEFORE steps should’ve been followed before this AfD, and we should have explored options for improvement. Applying WP:DOUBT and WP:BATHWATER, we should aim to fix the article, not toss it out. QLDLG (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BEFORE was indeed done; it is a breach of WP:AGF to assume it wasn't. The debate is whether the sources that exist in the article and outside are routine coverage of a local politician or significant coverage that contributes to GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PS @QLDLG, it is unusual for a new user's first edit to be to create a user page with userboxes, etc, and then the next three edits to be to an Articles for Deletion discussion. Did you edit here under another account or as an IP editor? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Casual Wikipedian in the past (last edit 2023), that account was vanished due to it being linked with a now deleted university email. This Article (and subsequent nomination for deletion) was shared in a local political discussion group on Facebook and I felt the need to contribute. Apologies if my earlier comment came across as a breach of WP:AGF — that wasn’t my intent, I'd like to outline why I said that:
    • Per WP:BEFORE, if an article can be improved through normal editing, it’s not a candidate for AfD (C-1), and I believe that’s the case here. Adequate sources clearly exist, quoting C-4, "the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination".
    • Looking at the page history, the article was nominated on the same day Remarka6le began working on it — that’s not a reasonable amount of time (IMO) to allow for development or collaboration (C-2).
    • I also couldn’t find any concerns raised on the talk page beforehand, and cleanup tags only appeared after the nomination (C-3).
    Were these issues raised directly with the article's contributors? Because from my point of view, it feels like some of the standard steps to improve rather than remove were skipped. QLDLG (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @QLDLG Thanks for explaining the history. It would be very unusual for a new user to know all these WP policies. (I would recommend describing that history on your userpage so other editors don't make assumptions about alternate accounts.) Would you also post the Facebook link where this discussion is being discussed? If there is off-wiki WP:CANVASSING going on, the closer should know about it. To address your points, no attempt to discuss with contributors was necessary because there was already an AfD consensus for a redirect, and frankly, Remarka6le should have brought it to WP:DRV before attempting to overturn the consensus. They didn't, so there's no prohibition on bringing a second AfD when someone is contravening a previous consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, the discussion in question initially focused on the lack of coverage on Paul Pisasale’s page, but naturally shifted to Teresa Harding’s page once her AfD prominently displayed above it was pointed out. Since you're neither a resident of Ipswich nor an alumni of the university, you wouldn’t have access (or be granted access) to the Facebook group, so linking to it wouldn’t be useful. If there had been as much activity here as on Facebook, you’d likely have seen the discussion by now.
    • That said, I still think it would have been better to engage directly with the contributor. Remarka6le is clearly a new contributor, and their edits are clearly made with genuine intent to improve the article. As an experienced editor, you would know how important it is to collaborate and support new contributors. I worry that experiences like this could discourage someone who might have been a great asset to Wikipedia.
    • Regarding the second AfD: While there’s no rule against nominating a new AfD, the process should still be handled with care. The original AfD happened over a year ago, and Remarka6le created the article only to see it nominated for deletion less than a day later. A more reasonable approach would have been to wait at least a week to give them a chance to develop the article further or, at the very least, reach out to point out the previous AfD, maybe even offer a hand in writing the article. Rushing into a second AfD without giving the new contributor time to engage with the article is counterproductive.
    QLDLG (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should make fewer assumptions about where Wikipedians are or are not resident. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You note on your userpage that you’ve done paid editing for the American Bankers Association, you consistently use American spelling, you’ve travelled to all but one US state, and many of your article subjects and edits focus on US-based buildings and religious figures. Based on that, I felt it was a reasonable inference that you're US-based. In any case, I’ll leave it there — I've said what I needed to and we’re edging into WP:BLUDGEONING, and I don’t want to derail the discussion further. QLDLG (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: This discussion has been canvassed in a private Facebook group; see disclosure here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tongi West Thana

[edit]
Tongi West Thana (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)

Police station does not appear to be notable. Although there are four sources, that may not meet WP:NBUILDING, which requires .." they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.". Emphasis on "in-depth".

Creator of article should provide quotes from sources to show that the sources cover the place "in depth"... more than cursory. Noleander (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? It hasnt even been a day since I created the page, you do realize that these are administrative units? Right? See other AfDs for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tajhat Thana, this isn't just about a police station, it is about a administrative unit, Thanas are equivalent to upazilas in Bangladesh, while Wikipedia is not a directory, not creating these pages would cause some issues as many information will be missing. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is not just a spam delete section, you don't delete every article after just seeing it, check why and is this even relevant? This is indeed relevant, Thanas are equivalent to sub-districts in Bangladesh, it isn't just a random police station, While Hussain Muhammad Ershad in the 1980s did convert many thanas into subdistricts under a decentralization programme, thanas remain and there are atleast 652 thanas, each covering lots of information, not creating these pages and nominating them for AfD is not applicable, in fact I was creating these pages less than a day ago, I couldn't sleep due to Wikipedia notification sounds that another article was nominated to be deleted, its too soon plus improve the article yourself then, Wikipedia is not a one-sided encyclopedia, it must be contributed to by multiple individuals. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Thana refers to a tertiary administrative division in Bangladesh similar to Upazila. These subdistricts are based on which areas have police station. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 19:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to advance notability of a "police station". I keep seeing "Thana refers to a tertiary administrative division in Bangladesh similar to Upazila. These subdistricts are based on which areas have police station". Not one time a source to connect (prove it) a local "police station" as an administrative division, subdivision, or unit. I also keep seeing routine news reports that are not about the subject, a "police station". Sources on the article:
    1. 1 title: A murder case was filed with Tongi West Police Station,
    2. 2 title: SI's body found at Tongi police barrack,
    3. 3 title: Same as #2,
    4. 4 title: CCTV cameras installed at Tongi West Police Station. If kept, regardless of policies and guidelines, this might mean we could create 18,000 articles on "police stations" in the US. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My purpose was not to show that Wikipedia is a directory, its not, my purpose was to create pages of Thanas (administrative units and a police station, they serve two roles, they are equivalent to upazilas [sub-districts], according to the Bangladesh Government and related sources), now i take time to fully improve the page, if someone doesnt even give me that time, then don't expect me and other editors to add in-depth, independent, secondary sources to it. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, create those pages, am i restricting anybody from creating pages about American administrative units or police stations? Am i? Prove that i am restricting it then, you want proof that Thana is a administrative unit? Sure:
    1. The Daily Observer, Published 31 March 2019 (redirect)
    2. ResearchGate
    3. Banglapedia
    BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, you have edited the article Thanas of Bangladesh. It has not been challenged that "After being reinstated in 1992, the thana system was reverted back to the upazila system in 1999", or "In contemporary usage, the term "thana" specifically denotes police precincts and their respective police stations." This source clearly indicates "This system was reverted to the thana system in 1992. Later in 1999 geographic regions under administrations of thanas were converted into upazilas. All administrative terms in this level were renamed from thana to upazila." The Administrative geography of Bangladesh gives no mention of any administrative equivalent. The history section of the Upazila article goes into detail "The word thana is now used to solely refer to police stations." The Upazila Nirbahi Officer is a non-elected officer within the Upazila. The head of a police station is an inspector. There is much evidence to support the opposite of claims that a Thana is the equivalent of a Upazila. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Administrative value of thanas did shift into upazilas in 1999 in rural Bangladesh but in urban contexts, thanas still exist and have value, many cities and areas still fall under thanas and just because value shifted doesn't mean thanas are not important in administrative contexts. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The problem is notability as an organization. If there is sourcing where, what is absolutely just a "police station", is involved in Upazila administrative duties, that might be an exception. The original authority for things like collecting taxes was also transferred to the Upazila. Collecting or any charges would originate from the Upazila, more likely from the UNO. This official is also now part of the Upazila. There is confusion, as I am sure, and according to some sources usurping of authority. A filing (2022) with the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (page 2 and 3) referenced the "Thana Nirbahi Officer (in short, UNO)". A Thana inspector (officer-in-charge or OC) has been referred to as a senior position, yet they are promoted according to the [Junior Police Service Rules 1969]. Apparently, an OC is considered powerful. The rules state that to ensure fair elections an OC is supposed to be transferred every two years. However, even if powerful, maybe breaking rules, their "official administrative duties" are limited to the Thana they are in charge of.
The history section of the Upazila article includes the unsourced However, it was complicated again and currently, Upazilas which combinely form "Administrative Districts" are known as Thanas. For example: Panchlaish Thana, Double Mooring Thana under Chittagong district. This is not only unsourced it is against other article content and sources. I have found zero sources to back up that the Panchlaish Thana or Double Mooring Thana operate in any combination as a Upazila or that any Upazila is referred to as a Thana.
I will bow out in acquiescence if a reliable source can be provided, particularly a law, Bangladesh Code, act of Parliament, ordinance, or even a President’s Order, that allows an exemption to the 1983 national decentralization program, other than the UNO acting as an Ex-Officio Chairman until elections could be held, granting authority to the OC of a Thana to act in an official capacity equivalent to the Chairman of a Upazila.
Note: As mentioned, "IF" there are any "cities and areas" (whatever "areas" mean) where there is some "urban context" that these areas "fall under Thanas", PLEASE! provide sources. This might be an exemption to a "police station" but not for the majority of the around 491 other "police stations" in Bangladesh. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Otr500's reasons. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, the “Strong delete” !vote appears to rely entirely on Otr500’s interpretation, which assumes that thanas are now obsolete administrative units. This interpretation is factually incorrect in the urban context of Bangladesh.

Yes, rural thanas were restructured into upazilas in 1999. But in urban Bangladesh, thanas still operate as distinct administrative and law enforcement zones under metropolitan jurisdictions. They are:

Used in official documentation (address, police certificates, court summonses)

Referenced in ongoing law enforcement communications

Recognized by major newspapers and residents alike

Structured and published officially by the relevant metropolitan police (DMP, CMP, GMP, etc.)


Tongi West Thana, for example, is part of Gazipur Metropolitan Police, a legitimate state agency, and serves a defined and populated region. That makes it both verifiable and publicly relevant — which are the core standards for notability on Wikipedia.

This deletion proposal seems to misunderstand the distinction between rural and urban administrative evolution in Bangladesh. While the role of the thana changed in rural areas, its function in cities persists and remains notable in multiple civic and bureaucratic contexts.

Instead of deletion, these articles should be improved with stronger sourcing and consistent formatting — not removed from public knowledge.BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files

[edit]

File:Joeychair.jpg

[edit]
File:Joeychair.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Madmumbler (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joeychair.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:John A Ambrose.jpg

[edit]
File:John A Ambrose.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Quantin Maueno (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:John A Ambrose.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johnny Carson with Rubye Posner.ogg

[edit]
File:Johnny Carson with Rubye Posner.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rposner (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Johnny Carson with Rubye Posner.ogg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:David M. Heyman.jpg

[edit]
File:David M. Heyman.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Salscipnlia (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:David M. Heyman.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gerald Farinas Addison Totem Pole.jpg

[edit]
File:Gerald Farinas Addison Totem Pole.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gerald Farinas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerald Farinas Addison Totem Pole.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Redirects

[edit]

Templates and Modules

[edit]

Template:VoR

[edit]

This template has been around since 2024, and seems to be useless. Legend of 14 (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

[edit]

Deletion review

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=1289606016"