Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

if page isn't updating.

Guide to deletion

Wolf's Lair (book)

Wolf's Lair (book) (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)

Borderline failure of WP:NBOOK. The author and publisher are both non-notable. There are three sources in the article and I could not find more during WP:BEFORE. The second source [1] seems fine as an independent review. The first source [2] has a conflict of interest: the reviewer discloses at the end that he was a guest of honour at the launch event of Wolf’s Lair. The third source [3] is mainly a short interview of the author, which is excluded under WP:NBOOK: publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Astaire (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Military, Politics, and India. Astaire (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Dreams & Chaos (book)

Dreams & Chaos (book) (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)

Author and publisher are both non-notable. Can't find any independent reviews of this book. The only sources available are those like [4] and [5] announcing the book's launch, which are excluded under WP:NBOOK: publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Appears to have inspired a web series which may also be non-notable. Astaire (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, India, and Nagaland. Astaire (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Blazing Fury

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Blazing Fury
• Articles for deletion/Blazing Fury (2nd nomination)

Blazing Fury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article appears to fail WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The content is largely unsourced or relies on primary and non-independent references (e.g. the park website, RCDB), and most of the article reads like a fan-written ride guide in violation of WP:NOTGUIDE. Furthermore, the page has a prior deletion history — it was nominated for deletion in October 2018 and the result was a redirect, implying consensus at the time that standalone notability was not met. No substantial new sourcing has been added since then. Recommend deletion or redirect per precedent. Icem4k (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Butterfly Vendetta

Butterfly Vendetta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable band. Coverage from reliable sources is insufficient for establishing notability. Fails WP:NBAND. Also possible WP:COI or WP:PE. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Virginia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not understanding how this artist fails notability. The band meets at least two of the WP:NBAND criteria as outlined. They are the subjects of a feature documentary that has been distributed world-wide via Tubi and Amazon Prime. Additionally, their music has been featured in several independent films with global reach. Dndlive (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Further, a conflict of interest does not exist with this publication, as the artists in question are independent and representing themselves. They are not receiving payment and I am not receiving payment for proposing their inclusion on Wikipedia. Dndlive (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I humbly request that this article remain published due to artists meeting Wikipedia inclusion criteria, and that I be given the opportunity to revise the citations in order to avoid bare URLs and have a clear citation style. Any help is greatly appriciated. Dndlive (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• The feature documentary appears to be directed by the band founder, so is a WP:Primary source. I am not seeing evidence, in the article and WP:BEFORE, of any secondary coverage showing how the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO, including coverage of the documentary itself. As it appears to be mentioned in the article - I was going to propose redirect to David Dillehunt per WP:ATD, but the sourcing for the content in that article is also poor so I just don't see how this can be anything other than Delete. Happy to modify my !vote if coverage turns up. User Dndlive - if you need any help or hints on wikipedia notability please let me know. ResonantDis_tortion 22:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@ResonantDistortion: I went ahead and nominated that article for deletion as well. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Dillehunt. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: I am unable to find any secondary independent sources, all current cited sources are either trivial or not independent. Easily fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Nagol0929 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

James Helm

James Helm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A seemingly promotional article about a marketing professional and social media influencer who only received significant coverage in one article in The Inquirer [6]. He was also quoted and discussed in Philadelphia Magazine [7], but he was not the subject of the article—I don't think this counts as significant independent coverage. On the whole, fails WP:BASIC. JBchrch talk 21:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pennsylvania. JBchrch talk 21:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - there's no allegation or evidence for notability; he fails my standards for attorneys. Bearian (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep in addition to the Inquirer, Philadelphia Magazine has more than 15 significant paragraphs [8]:

No one represents the it’s-only-a-business new breed as much as TopDog Law, the entity launched by James Helm in 2019, not long after finishing — perhaps tellingly — a dual JD/MBA program at Rutgers.

“It comes down to unit economics,” Helm said cheerfully on a legal industry marketing podcast last year. (The TopDog founder, who grew up in Delco and now spends most of his time in Scottsdale, Arizona, declined my request for a sit-down interview.) In the podcast Helm went on to explain that you first have to know the average fee you generate on a case — if it’s $10,000, you have work to do; if it’s $25,000, you’re doing pretty well. Then you need to calculate the cost of acquiring a client. If you understand those two things — and if the delta between them is large enough — “then I can get aggressive about acquiring new customers, and I can do it profitably.”

Simple, right?

It’s a formula Helm has used with great success. Six years after launching TopDog, Helm’s operation now has a presence, according to its website, in more than 35 cities across the country, from Ann Arbor and Atlanta to Washington, D.C. Thousands of calls and contacts come in each week.

Key to the success have been decisions Helm made early on, starting with the consumer-friendly TopDog name. “I think traditionally [law] firms have been very bad at branding their businesses,” Helm said on the podcast. “Every other industry has names that are easy to say, easy to sell, easy to remember. Whereas with law firms, the brand wasn’t the focus.” In dubbing his outfit TopDog — a moniker that could just as easily have been used on, say, an energy drink or a new brand of kibble — he landed on something that both was easy to remember and conjured up winning. “I think a large part of our success is due to the name,” he said. “TopDog gets you top dollar.”

Helm’s second outside-the-box decision was to focus on social media when it came to marketing. In part the strategy was born of necessity — Helm didn’t have enough money to advertise on TV; even Google AdWords was out of his league. But it also spoke to his age (27 at the time); Instagram and TikTok were as natural to him as TV was to Rand Spear.

“We really thought there was room to revolutionize [legal marketing], especially on the social media front,” says Ian Harrington, TopDog’s first marketing director. (Harrington would go on to work for Pond Lehocky and is now co-founder, with Ryan Makris and Kate Schenkel, of Very Decent Marketer.) “At the time, no law firm was doing social media with any kind of success or results. It wasn’t by accident that we saw that as an opportunity. James was young; he was good-looking. He wasn’t as good on camera as he is now. That actually took a long time to get right. But we were willing to put in the reps to figure it out.”

Early on, TopDog’s social strategy was based on Helm sharing his personal story. A high school wrestler, he’d started taking prescription painkillers following an injury at age 17, and he’s said he spent eight years as an addict before finally entering rehab while in law school. The message to potential clients: I know what it’s like to be down and out. I can help you get your life back.

But in time that strategy gave way to something more over-the-top — kinetic videos of a hyper Helm doing everything from mugging at the camera to rapping. “We had to get our name out there by being bombastic and creating the TopDog persona,” says Harrington. “The algorithms of the platforms push the louder, the bombastic, the faster-cuts kind of stuff. And we really leaned into that.”

As is increasingly the norm in the personal injury law business, the cases Helm generates — through social media or radio or all those TopDog billboards — are not primarily handled by him or any lawyer working for him, but by other lawyers around the country. In fact, if you look closely at the language, you see that TopDog Law isn’t really even a law firm. Helm’s LinkedIn page describes it as “a leading case acquisition and plaintiff intake platform,” while the TopDog website calls it “a national network for law firms licensed to practice in their applicable states.”

The uber-referral model is not one every lawyer — even in the personal injury realm — is comfortable with. “I think it’s important for the consumer to understand who they’re retaining to represent them,” says Spear. “I’m here every day. I work morning till night. I like meeting with clients.”

Perhaps more to the point: Advertising done primarily for the purpose of referring cases to other firms actually runs afoul of Pennsylvania’s Rules of Professional Conduct. As the rules put it: “It is misleading to the public for a lawyer or law firm, with knowledge that the lawyer or law firm will not be handling a majority of the cases attracted by advertising, to nonetheless advertise for those cases only to refer the cases to another lawyer whom the client did not initially contact.”

When I email Helm about this, I get a quick reply from his general counsel, Sean Berberian. He says that because Helm — through the entity Helm Law LLC — maintains joint responsibility for all cases, he’s not, in fact, “referring” matters and is, therefore, “absolutely compliant with Pennsylvania rules of ethics, as well as other applicable jurisdictions.”

As it happens, none of this may even matter. When I ask Thomas Wilkinson, the former Pennsylvania Bar Association president, about the relevant section of Pennsylvania’s rules, he essentially shrugs. “There is not a tremendous amount of policing in Pennsylvania of improper advertising. Sometimes that policing only occurs when there’s been a complaint about the quality of representation or a client feels they’ve been duped in some way. But for the most part, if clients are pleased with the outcomes, they don’t care a great deal about how they got to the lawyer.”

I understand Wilkinson’s point. And yet it still strikes me as odd, the equivalent of a restaurateur — say, Marc Vetri! — running an ad for his restaurant, but then telling you when you call for a reservation that he’s going to get you a table at one of Michael Solomonov’s or Jose Garces’s restaurants.

Then again, for better or worse, what TopDog and so many other personal injury firms are selling is less legal services than the idea of suing in the first place.

His billboard is covered by Philly Voice [9], a profile in OK magazine [10], his social media in Arizona [11]. Judging this against WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," there are five published independent sources. Little Astros Sign (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

This article is not significant independent coverage of James Helm, the person: it's mostly quotes of him and his staff about his company and the company's business strategy, with some light background info about Helm as founder. If anything it could count as coverage of TopDog, the company he created. More generally, Helm appears to makes a lot of noise about himself on social media and in the real world, so it's not surprising that some news outlet would quote him or mention him, but that still does not count as significant independent coverage. Separately, I am not convinced that OK! is a reliable source. JBchrch talk 12:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I have found additional sources about him [12] [13] but to me the article seems to be coverage about both him and his company but are you saying that you think that there is coverage for the company not him? I think the opposite because the articles all describe him as a person as the creator of the billboard, and Philadelphia Magazine article mentions him 18 times. Anyway, WP:BASIC — "the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" — if Inquirer is already one independent source then the other six sources can combine to at least be one (which is more than one meaning it is multiple)? Little Astros Sign (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I cannot access the Law360 article, but the Houston Chronicle article does not appear to offer significant independent coverage of James Helm as a person: it covers the billboard story, mentions that Helm is the person who created it, and quotes Helm. Looking at the sources you provided, the coverage falls in my view under the second prong of the rule you cite, i.e. "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" (emphasis mine). JBchrch talk 13:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Hundreds of Wikipedia articles use OK! as a reliable source [14] Little Astros Sign (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep: Three articles plus a few short ones is enough for NBASIC. 🄻🄰 15:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

May I ask which three articles you are referring to? JBchrch talk 19:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please do not introduce large amounts of content to an AFD discussion which should focus on the condition of the article and possible sources, not reproducing those sources here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Leela Charitra

Leela Charitra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:N. No significant coverage in secondary sources for the content covered here for a standalone article. Also, this term can have different meanings, and better if covered on related articles. This page says "Leela Charitra is a biography of Chakradhar Swami", but no mention on Chakradhar Swami. If needed, a section can be added on Chakradhar Swami. Asteramellus (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep It is mentioned on Chakradhar Swami page by its alternate spelling Lilacharitra - "According to his biography Lilacharitra,". "Lilacharitra is a remarkable text from several points of view. It is the first prose text avaialble in Marathi and also the first biographical work." [15] The text is important from a literary as well as religious perspective. [16][17]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Redtigerxyz oh thanks. Looked a bit more into this - I see mostly usage of Lilacharitra for this - Do you think then the page title Lilacharitra would be better? Asteramellus (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yes IMO. Yesterday I thought I start a Wikipedia:RM, however would wait for the AfD to end. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

David Dillehunt

David Dillehunt (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)

Poorly sourced article, which is also filled with promotional clutter and unnecessary external links. A WP:BEFORE shows that the subject is somewhat notable, but coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NDIRECTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Virginia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, CycloneYoris. I am the subject of this article and I disagree that notability fails Wikipedia standards in that regard. I am aware that this article was created nearly 20 years ago. It appears that the citation quality is lacking, but the projects themselves rise to the national and international level which is required in those standards. I would propose that these poor quality citations be corrected instead of article deletion. 64.96.70.108 (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

For this article to be kept - you can assist by providing links to where you or your works have achieved WP:SECONDARY coverage. This may include local/regional/national press coverage or critical reviews. ResonantDis_tortion 08:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this clarification. I just overhauled the page to remove the aforementioned promotional clutter and unnecessary external links. Citations have been modified per Wiki guidelines and secondary coverage has been properly linked. Dndlive (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: - I read the NPR review and it's brutal. The Rotten Tomatoes sources are, well, rotten tomatoes. Be careful what you ask for. As I've written before, sometimes it's only the bad reviews that prove notability, while the puff pieces are just the deprecation of media in an age of corporate budget cuts. Again, are you sure that you want notoriety? I mean, really? Bearian (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Bearian. I like your comment, it's quite funny. That piece is a brutal but honest review and I appreciate that someone with NPR took the time to assess the film. As an artist, I take the good with the bad. Notoriety remains subjective – but I value the global reach of my projects, whether viewers like them or not. 64.96.70.108 (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I would propose to keep this article. The subject is notable and passes WP:BIO and WP:NDIRECTOR. The article has been cleaned up and revised to address the aforementioned issues, including WP:SECONDARY sources. Dndlive (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: Just want to note that the user above has an undisclosed conflict of interest with the subject of this article. @Dndlive: what relationship do you have with the subject in question, and is he paying you to edit here? CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

CycloneYoris: I don't believe I have a COI with this subject. I'm a fan of his "You Can't Do That on Film" documentary, but I've voluntarily updated the page for years out of respect to the filmmaker. I'm a freelance graphic designer and I'm not receiving any compensation for these updates. I tried to create a page for his rock band as well by sourcing details from the web, but I recognize the band currently fails WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO. My apologies for any confusion. Dndlive (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more arguments focused on sources and outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Hugo de Garis

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Hugo de Garis
• Articles for deletion/Hugo de Garis (2nd nomination)

Hugo de Garis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBLP. (Definitely doesn't meet WP:NPROF.) Leaving out the first-party sources and blogs, all that remains are:

• two Wired articles from '97: basically interviews, one explicitly calls him "fringe"
• the BBC article from '99: somewhere between credulous and Britishly bemused
• the 2010 Geraci book: does mention him a bunch of times, but only as an example of a transhumanist / posthumanist / extropian / I guess we would call this TESCREAL now?

We also know now that his research program was not successful in creating artificial brains, let alone planet-sized ones. That doesn't invalidate any of the sources but it does put them in a different light. It's not at all clear that he originated any of these concepts: most were established scifi tropes well before he started his research. I did do a WP:BEFORE search, which is when the two Wired articles were added. As far as I can tell, with the available reliable sources, he isn't notable outside of a certain segment of the internet. Apocheir (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Technology. Apocheir (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• keep that his project failed doesnt mean he is not notable. I checked Google Scholar and found multiple (10+) papers with over 100 citations which is generally at the threshold but usually enough for passing WP:NPROF#1 and on top of that we have media coverage over his (failed) project which also counts towards GNG. I also found a full chapter on him in the book The Path to Posthumanity (pg 57 onwards). Taken together: I would say (weak) notability for NPROF and weak/okay notability with regards to GNG which leads me to conclude that notability is established and there is no reason to delete a reasonable, well sourced, quite NPOV article about the subject. --hroest 15:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I'm a little concerned about a keep argument based purely on citation counts, since several of the publications were coauthored, and their numbers aren't that big for a high-citation field and for potentially accumulating citations since the '90s. (Also, the Google Scholar link above doesn't work; try searching just with his first initial instead.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that just citation counts can be deceiving, but while I'm not sure my direction (hence a comment), we should take into account that the field was significantly lower-citation in the 1990s and reference counting from then wasn't as good as it is now. When I vote it'll probably be mostly based on the Path to Posthumanity chapter, not citation numbers. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The Path to Posthumanity was written by Ben Goertzel, who has collaborated with de Garis on quite a few articles. It's not independent by any measure. Apocheir (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks -- that's important to know. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• Weak delete based upon failing WP:NPROF. Similar to others above, I am not convinced by the citation numbers claim by hroest. I make his h-factor somewhere in the 25-30 range, which is low for a high citation field. Having a few > 100 cited articles is significantly less (in most of science) than what is typically discussed at WT:NPROF and AfD. If others can persuade me of a WP:GNG pass I will change my vote. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs a bit more time to come to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Portuguese exonyms

Portuguese exonyms (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)

Although the Portuguese article has lots of citations I am not sure that is enough to show notability on English Wikipedia Chidgk1 (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Portugal. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a particularly strong exonym page, although I was disappointed to see it lacked sections for Angola and Mozambique, which would likely serve a more encyclopedic purpose than France or Greece. The Portuguese Wikipedia references seem adequate to me to demonstrate notability. If consensus is keep, ping me and I will try to make some improvements to it in the next couple weeks. - Ike Lek (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  As a prolific contributor to this article and a native speaker of European Portuguese, I have no reservations about writing the sections on Angola and Mozambique, with a view to enhancing the utility of the article. It is imperative to note that greater care will be exercised in the near future to ensure the inclusion of additional sources. Cantrusthestory (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If such lists were confined to examples about which something more could be said, e.g. those that are unrelated to the endonym or distorted by false etymology, I'd say keep. —Tamfang (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  I respectfully disagree with our opinion. Individuals who do not possess proficiency in Portuguese will encounter significant challenges in adapting toponyms to the appropriate Portuguese phonology and orthography. Cantrusthestory (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  Then should en.wp include glossaries of everything that a learner of Portuguese might need to mention? —Tamfang (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete these exonym articles are generally not notable Metallurgist (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  That is a bold claim to make without providing any evidence or rationale to back it up. Ike Lek (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep - As a prolific contributor to this article and a specialist in linguistics, as well as a native European Portuguese speaker, I posit that articles of this nature are necessary on account of their educational value, cross-linguistic and cross-cultural navigation, and their potential to facilitate translation and multilingual writing. Moreover, they ensure searchability and disambiguation for those who wish to navigate not only any list of Portuguese exonyms, but also any other language, including even endangered languages. Cantrusthestory (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Cantrusthestory Thanks for your expertise. Could you possibly add some citations to this article? Perhaps some of those on the Portuguese article. Nowadays most citations (except pdfs) can be easily added by using the “automatic” option in Visual Editor. If you have any difficulty with adding cites please ask or just add them in the right place in a rudimentary way and some helpful Wikignome will tidy them later. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - obviously WP:DICDEF is not a relevant policy as these are not dictionary definitions. There are plenty of references on pt.wiki, which would appear to be more than enough to satisfy WP:NLIST, happy to have a more forensic discussion of those if that's really necessary. RS on en.wiki do not have to be in English.JMWt (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Rabbid Peach

Rabbid Peach (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 character is not notable for an article Aomaf (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment that's...not really much of a reasoning at all? What makes you feel it isn't notable?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  just is random character for make an article about Aomaf (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  A character being random is not a reason for deletion. A character is notable if they pass the general notability guidelines. This applies to anything, actually. λ NegativeMP1 21:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  Note I am not saying the character is notable. I have no opinion. I'm just pointing out that this is not a valid deletion argument backed up by what is normally expected from these discussions (citing policy, source analysis, etc.). λ NegativeMP1 21:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Weak delete Insufficient justification for an AfD, but on looking at the sources it seems most of them only discuss the character briefly, in one short paragraph or less, so not exactly WP:SIGCOV. The last reference (Ref. 25) might be the most in-depth, but it's also an opinion piece. Many of the sources focus on a dance video involving the character, not the character herself. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Merge with Rabbids#Characters as a WP:ATD, they do seem to be notable enough for a series page, but this is getting into an unnecessary degree of specificity. This character does not have the significant coverage to be standalone notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Weak merge as creator. I do believe that it hits WP:THREE (Gita Jackson, Laura Kate Dale, and the Edge Spain piece), but I am also not a fan of using THREE for characters unless the significant coverage is especially significant, or if there's a ton of smaller pieces that demonstrate the character receives a mass of discussion that amounts to substantive commentary. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Merge to Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle, where most of the information on Rabbid Peach is already contained in development and reception. Some more bits on the reception of the Instagram account can be merged here, as well as anything else deemed necessary. The significant subject overlap means this subject fails Wikipedia:NOPAGE. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Elsa O'Riain

Elsa O'Riain (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)

Former tennis player with highest singles ranking of 382 and doubles of 295. Won a few very low level tournaments but never appeared at a WTA main draw or Grand Slam main draw. Retired aged 23 and having made $14,000 dollars in her entire career. Not played since 2005 so nothing new is going to come along. Only sources are the usual database or university produced ones. Fails GNG and SIGCOV. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Sports, Tennis, Europe, and Ireland. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Tiphanie Lemaître

Tiphanie Lemaître (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)

Tennis player who fails GNG and SIGCOV. Her few wins have all been at very low level, her highest world ranking in singles is above 400 and doubles is above 300, all the sources included in the article are database type stuff or published by her universities so are not impartial and they're only pen picture things anyway. All I can find is passing mentions in further university published stuff. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Sports, Tennis, Europe, and France. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Domm (Bangladeshi film)

Domm (Bangladeshi film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Filming has not yet begun, per WP:NFF, draftify until main production has been confirmed BOVINEBOY2008 20:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Draftify per nom. As above _{so below} 22:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Ben Davis (singer)

Ben Davis (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability. A WP:BEFORE shows only limited coverage, and there's a lack of reliable sourcing on the subject. Fails WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Indiana. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  User:CycloneYoris, this person should be listed also in the discussions for Theatre, Opera and any appropriate musical categories. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

   Done - Eva Ux 22:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Although the article is slapdash and poorly referenced, this actor has a Tony Award and has played more than half a dozen significant roles on Broadway. I don't know what your WP:BEFORE review included, but he is mentioned in lots of Google News articles here and here. Here are refs to lots of his reviews: https://benjaminjaydavis.com/press.html . Clearly notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Theatre. - Eva Ux 22:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Looks like a case of {{sources exist}} as far as notability is concerned per links by Ssilvers and my own searches. Suggest adding maintenance tags appropriately. WeWake (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004

Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 (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 notable. Landpin (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Environment. Landpin (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and England. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Town and country planning in the United Kingdom.--Policking (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Statutory instruments of the United Kingdom, planning law

Statutory instruments of the United Kingdom, planning law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Landpin (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Environment. Landpin (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

E. J. Nauzad

E. J. Nauzad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability. No significant coverage in English or Tamil [18]. All sources are passing mentions including the reviews. Redirect to Agadam. While most are praiseworthy, this review calls his work shoddy without mentioning his name. His name is not mentioned on the Guinness World Records certificate and the record has since been broken [19].

Article created by person himself? [20] DareshMohan (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Valentino Fiévet

Valentino Fiévet (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)

Seems like a case of the old WP:NFOOTY met WP:TOOSOON. The player played 13 minutes in Spain's second division, as a substitute on the last day of the season. That's going to be hard to spin into an article arguing that he had any notability as a footballer. Interestingly, somebody of the same name in the same part of Spain (and how many Frenchmen are on this side of the Pyrenees) is now a shepherd with some local news coverage [21] [22] but gee, you'd think they'd throw in a mention of his football career if they could, just like mine or your local newspaper do with other small business owners. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

CHOB-TV

CHOB-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable Indigenous TV station; just two sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Two sources are enough to demonstrate notability. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Carlos Ramos (Dutch footballer)

Carlos Ramos (Dutch footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Played 21 professional matches before dropping into amateur football. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. RossEvans19 (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Even in nl.wiki lacks sources. Svartner (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Michael Clayton (racing driver)

Michael Clayton (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)

Sources cited are generic reports of finishing positions or brief mentions. No significant coverage of the subject and racing at a national level does not show presumed notability Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I found [one source that talks about the companies he has] Finn Shipley (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Jota (footballer, born 2006)

Jota (footballer, born 2006) (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 am questioning whether or not this footballer is notable enough at this current time by looking at what division Albacete Balompié play in. If the result of this discussion is keep then, without any controversy, Jota (Spanish footballer) will be moved to Jota (footballer, born 1991) as there would be two Spanish footballing Jotas live on Wikipedia. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd say keep... The article does have sources to grant WP:GNG (in my opinion) and is about a very young player who is still involved in the first team (per the last ref, he is currently involved in the pre-season with the first team). BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - the 2 x 5 Más el Descuento sources look good. GiantSnowman 18:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Document360 (company)

Document360 (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article has already been deleted under the name "Document360". Frap (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Frap (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was Procedural Keep‎: This is not an article but a redirect and redirects have to go to WP:RFD. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

1956 Hungarian counter-revolution

1956 Hungarian counter-revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No credible outlet or institution refers to the 1956 Revolution as such, and the redirect was added by a self-proclaimed Marxist-leninist, blatant POV redirect. The fact this has gone unnoticed for FIVE TO SIX YEARS is a joke. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 16:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete but shouldn't this be at RfD instead? 2A00:23C5:E9AC:DA01:6C4C:4E3:8ECB:EFDB (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. RfD would be more appropriate. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

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.

Peter Cochran (soccer)

Peter Cochran (soccer) (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)

Cochran played a single season in the Western Soccer Alliance and I could not find specific information about his professional career. After playing in the WSA Cochran then played collegiate soccer and does not appear to have played professionally again, likely failing WP:GNG. Raskuly (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, Massachusetts, and Oregon. Raskuly (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Ali Tajdari

Ali Tajdari (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)

Most of the info here is completely unverifiable or very dubious, e.g. the film awards, or his "championship titles" in MMA. At best he lacks notability as established by reliable sources. Fram (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Martial arts, and Iran. Fram (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep – The subject of this article, Ali Tajdari, clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria under several guidelines:

1. He is a multi-time national champion in Vovinam and has represented Iran in international competitions. This satisfies WP:NATHLETE.
2. He has a documented professional MMA career, verified by third-party databases. This also satisfies WP:NATHLETE and confirms independent verifiability.
3. He has released multiple music albums, performed concerts, and has coverage in reliable media, satisfying WP:NARTIST.
4. He has acted in national television productions with non-trivial, recurring roles – fulfilling WP:NACTOR.
5. The subject’s multi-disciplinary recognition has received coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG.

It is important to note that this article has existed on Wikipedia for over three years and has been subject to continuous improvement and scrutiny. Notably, two of Wikipedia's most experienced and respected administrators have contributed significantly to refining this article. The fact that these senior editors have worked on it strongly suggests that the subject's notability and the article’s reliability have been thoroughly evaluated.

Given this context, the sudden nomination for deletion appears premature and lacks sufficient justification. Wikipedia's deletion policy emphasizes improvement over removal, especially for articles that have been maintained and expanded over several years.

The appropriate course here should be article improvement, not deletion. Per Wikipedia’s core values, deletion should only occur when an article is irremediably non-notable or unverifiable, which is not the case here. More sourcing and clarification can continue collaboratively.

Strongly oppose deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jijijef (talk • contribs) 16:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete (Notified by Jijijef) - I am not convinced that GNG has been satisfied or any notability criteria. Fram pretty much summed up the issue. I don't see where enough improvement can take place for this to meet the notability guidelines due to a lack of verifiable information and a lack of reliable sources. The fact that five separate users declined this at Articles for Creation over a 35 day period on notability grounds is telling. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. As noted, subject fails WP:GNG. That the article has made it this long without being nominated is not a reason to keep it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Shawn Casemore (speaker)

Shawn Casemore (speaker) (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 a single reference in this article confers notability to the subject, and it appears to largely serve to advertise the subject's marketing books. All twenty four references at the time of writing are the subject's own books and articles, database listings, Abebooks, and similar. I moved the article to draft when I first saw it, and encouraged the author to submit it to AfC. They never responded to my messages, and moved it back to mainspace later. MediaKyle (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Journalism, Business, and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with nom. Mostly a promotional showcase for an unnotable subject who does not meet GNG.  GuardianH  21:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Maya Nasr

Maya Nasr (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)

Postdoctoral scientist at Harvard with an h-factor of 6 and 420 total citations. While she has made a good start to her career, she is some distance from passing WP:NPROF. Some graduate-level awards, and some minor coverage; not close to WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. I suspect that in 10 years or so she will pass the bar for notability, maybe even a few years earlier, but now is way WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Astronomy, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lebanon and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with nom. A highly successful subject who does not pass notability here. Lots of trivial mentions, primary sources, etc. used as sources which do not contribute to notability, and the article is largely a promotional showcase with a non-neutral point of view. There is a very real possibility that she will become quite notable in the future (but we are not a crystal ball). Just as a side note, the article was created by a single purpose account in 2022.  GuardianH  21:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete (sigh). This is one of the most well-written, helpful articles to not pass WP:N I've ever seen, I suggest that one principal editor retain a copy in user space or offline to safe the trouble of future recreation (Draftify is probably not an option since we're between 3-8 years from passing WP:PROF if I can use prior experience as a guide). But it's definitely not a WP:PROF pass at present -- agree with all of Ldm1954 and GuardianH assessments on overall notability. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Mscuthbert about this being the best written but non-notable article I've seen. I do hope an article will be warranted in due time. As above _{so below} 23:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Zachary Chase

Zachary Chase (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)

Graduate student in materials science with a few papers. No major awards, many years from a pass of WP:NPROF. PROD was contested by User:BorderlineRebel with unusual claims (see Talk:Zachary Chase), for instance that receiving graduate fellowships passes WP:NPROF#C2 and being on a student advisory committee passes WP:NPROF#C7. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GNG. I can't find substantial coverage of the subject in an independent reliable sources: a lot of the sources are self published by Chase or by his school. —C.Fred (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NPROF and WP:GNG – While the subject is clearly a promising early-career researcher, the article does not currently meet the inclusion standards of WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. The majority of sources are affiliated with the subject or their institution, and there is no sustained, in-depth coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Awards and academic service, while commendable, fall short of notability thresholds without significant third-party recognition. Notably, the subject has expressed a desire to have the article removed, which should be taken into consideration. —BorderlineRebel 16:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Request for Deletion. I am the subject of this article. While I appreciate the effort behind its creation, I do not wish to have a Wikipedia page at this time. I have conferred with other users and I believe the content does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF, and several aspects are either inaccurate or not properly sourced. I am formally requesting deletion in accordance with WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Zacharychase94 — Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC) — Zacharychase94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Comment, Zacharychase94 contacted me directly on my talk page (see the details there), and I suggested that he post here, so this is not a canvassed SPA. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per subject request. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Synesthesia in fiction

Synesthesia in fiction (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)

Indiscriminate and fails WP:NLIST. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Psychology. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect - A cursory search shows that an actual prose article on the topic of synesthesia in fiction is certainly feasible (and in fact we already have the start of an article that does just this for literature at Synesthesia in literature). However, this is just an almost entirely unsourced list of examples, many of which are either from non-notable works or a one-time mention/gag, that runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I have no objection to redirecting this to either Synesthesia#Society and culture or Synesthesia in literature if preserving the history would be useful for expanding either of those articles. Though, given that there are only three sources here, two of which are from non-reliable sources and third is for a character that does not have synesthesia, I am not sure how useful it would be. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect per Rorshacma. This is an unsourced list of examples that violates WP:NOT, WP:SIGCOV, WP:OR, and WP:V. Wikipedia is not a directory of examples identified by our editors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what reliable sources have said about a topic. As of yet, I haven't seen sources that demonstrate support for an article about this topic. But if we did, it would be a WP:TNT situation. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Well, we can't keep this. One option is to delete it (looking at the "sourced" parts, there isn't really anything worth merging). Another option, if anybody feels up to it, would be to remove all the current content and start writing a prose article here (compare e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination)). There are two different approaches to writing X in popular culture/X in fiction articles: TV Tropes-style lists like this enumerating examples, and prose articles consisting of analysis from secondary sources on the overarching topic (e.g. Mars in fiction, a WP:Featured article). The issues with the former approach was outlined as early as 2008 in the essay WP:CARGO, and it is well past time that it were deprecated. TompaDompa (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:TNT, this is an indiscriminate and unencyclopedic list. Red link would potentially be useful were it to be rewritten into something based on prose and actual reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete per others, who have already stated my thoughts on this. Failure of multiple guidelines and just overall not-notable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Mackenson Altidor

Mackenson Altidor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only non-database reference in the article is a student newspaper that only covers him for a few sentences, and the best I could find elsewhere was [[23]], which is another student newspaper. There is a martial artist by the same name but I found no connection between him and the footballer. PROD was removed so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Bahamas, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Roxie (red panda)

Roxie (red panda) (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:BIO1E. No independent sources have given attention to Roxie before her death or not directly after their death. The only later source in the article is from the zoo (so not independent), and Google News showed no articles after the first few days. Fram (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Events, and Scotland. Fram (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep The topic received considerable coverage in major independent news sources including BBC, The Guardian, Associated Press, and People, reporting on Roxie’s death, its cause, and broader public and political reaction including a petition with over one million signatures. The incident generated substantial coverage beyond local or zoo press, fulfilling WP:ANIMALS and WP:GNG.Sweetabena (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:SUSTAINED, a section lower on the same page as WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: The articles I pull up are "baby red panda dies from fireworks stress", all in November 2024. Nothing before, or since. The animal doesn't seem to have had much cultural impact while alive, and even in death, there hasn't been much since. Very much 1E. For the two paragraphs of text, you could summarize this in an article about the zoo in a few lines and still have all the information covered here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Sad news but no lasting notability of the animal itelf. Edinburgh Zoo or Fireworks#Effects on animals could be a place to mention it. Reywas92^Talk 16:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. As pointed out above, no WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and the subject is largely tied up with the one unfortunate event that resulted in her death.  GuardianH  21:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Mannequin Wedding

Mannequin Wedding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Disputed draft indication. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Fails WP:NFILM 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Cambodia. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Old-AgedKid (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Draftify Published by article creator without addressing draft review concerns. BOVINEBOY2008 19:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete – Since the draft process was not respected. Svartner (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Coverage in Khmer on/in Kampuchea Thmey, Pnn.com or even Popular.com seems to be enough to prove that the subject of the article clearly meets WP:NFIC ("The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio". Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited"). But if a redirect and merge is preferred, Horror films of Cambodia is the target.- Eva Ux 01:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – it seems notable already. Abskiee (Talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: How is it not notable? Highest grossing film in the country, of all time. We also have critical reviews of it. Article is a little bare, but the information to expand it is available. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Epi ta proso

Epi ta proso (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)

Having attempted to find more sources for this newspaper, I've ended up coming up dry. In English, the only significant coverage I can find is the article by Dimitris Troaditis, which has been republished in a couple other websites. A search for more sources only brought up a single source, which mentions the newspaper in passing and provides no detail about it. Attempts to search for it in Greek mostly brought up false positives, due to its use as a phrase to say "forward".

As I've only been able to find a single source that gives it any in-depth coverage, and as I can't find any significant coverage in any other sources, I'm nominating this for deletion. The source could be moved to the anarchism in Greece article if it's worth keeping around. Grnrchst (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Greece. Grnrchst (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Sotbella

Sotbella (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)

Absolutely unnotable brand and fails to meet NCORP. The sources are undisclosed paid placements and puff pieces. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – The subject meet WP:ORG and WP:GNG. There is some coverage in independent, non-trivial sources such as:
  • Vogue India** – coverage of Sotbella's capsule collection with commentary on Indian heritage ([Vogue India](https://www.vogue.in/promotion/sotbellas-new-capsule-collection-celebrates-indian-heritage)).
  • Business Today** – mentions the brand in the context of emerging Indian fashion businesses. Along with this the existing sources in the article helps to meet notability.While the article currently requires cleanup for tone and improved referencing, deletion may be premature given the potential for development. — 111.92.121.62 (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The brand was "launched" in August 2023 and these sources are simply regurgitating the same information provided by the founder about herself and the new brand. Fails ORGIND and NCORP. Perhaps the founder is notable enough for an article? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

GreenPalm

GreenPalm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is currently a poorly sourced brochure for this certification program. We are presented with GreenPalm's own website, a "sustainability report", and an article from "Food Navigator USA", which does not satisfy notability. I did a brief search myself, and turned up a couple of passing mentions but nothing substantial. MediaKyle (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Environment, and Estonia. MediaKyle (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Program that was replaced by a newer one, with only primary sourcing or PR. You can find brief mentions of the program that replaced it, but I'm not sure it would be notable either, so a merge wouldn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with nom. An unnotable, extremely minor certificate program with no widespread coverage.  GuardianH  21:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

APCOA Parking

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/APCOA Parking
• Articles for deletion/APCOA Parking (2nd nomination)

APCOA Parking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another entry in the saga of UPE content is this German parking management company. The article seems to present only primary sources and routine coverage, and I am unsure if notability can be established to comply with WP:NCORP. MediaKyle (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Germany. MediaKyle (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Major company operating throughout Europe. Plenty of sourcing available. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

ProtectaPet

ProtectaPet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable and promotional. The King's Award may arguably be a credible claim of significance to escape A7, and I'm not sure it's so promotional to be G11 either, but I cannot see this passing WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. The "King's Award" does not appear to be of great significance. Local Variable (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Avatar 5 (upcoming film)

Avatar 5 (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWS, unclear why this was moved to article-space from Draft, no objection to draftifying pending filming starting on this project. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Draftify pending the start of principal photography. Jahaza (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Draftify The subject will certainly become notable as filming starts, but not now. LightlySeared (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Avatar (franchise) The fourth film isn't even finished yet, there is no reason we need an article about a film that won't even have the fourth film's plot established for another year, and at this point the cast (even confirmed) is entirely speculative. Nathannah • 📮 20:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Wesley Correira

Wesley Correira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet GNG, as most refs are sports results. No longer meets NMMA. Nswix (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Hawaii. Nswix (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Passes GNG. [24][25][26][27] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Edwin Dewees

Edwin Dewees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet GNG, no longer meets NMMA. Nswix (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and South Carolina. Nswix (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Passes GNG. [28][29][30][31] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment Does four articles in a local paper really qualify for GNG? If so, I could have a page, so could a bunch of people I know. Nswix (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Tanvir Siraj

Tanvir Siraj (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:BLP of a political figure, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that he's active in a political party's local chapter in a city, with no claim that he's ever held any office that would satisfy NPOL #1 -- but the article features no footnoting at all, and instead is just "referenced" to a contextless stack of weblinks mixing primary sources that aren't support for notability at all (Instagram, YouTube videos) with news articles that aren't about him, and just glancingly namecheck his existence as a participant in an event, which is not the kind of media coverage we're looking for.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Zero coverage found about this person, there are some hits in research papers about boiler inspections... No links in the article make it hard to confirm anything; based on the limited information, does not appear notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. At first, I thought senior leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) might make the subject qualify, but once you do some digging, there's no secondary coverage, no citations, nothing. The article is almost entirely original research. "President of the Basan Metropolitan Police Station unit of the BNP in Gazipur" is an extremely minor position. The article, for the most part, is a WP:PROMO showcase.  GuardianH  21:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

OVW Hardcore Championship

OVW Hardcore Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No notable pro wrestling title. It lasted less than a year, OVW was a regional promotion. We shouldn't create an article for every regional/independent championship. Barely mentions even in reliable sources. [32] HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment BTW, WP:NOTINHERITED, in case someone says "it's a title created by notable promotion Ohio Valley Wrestling" or "the title was held by Randy Orton". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ohio Valley Wrestling per WP:CHEAP. It's a real, if short-lived title, so just in case anyone is looking it up, they can link to the main subject. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

GXCW

GXCW (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)

Cannot find reliable sources, seems like possible WP:PROMO created by WP:SPA. Largely references the company's official announcements and PR pages. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: doesn't have enough reliable sources. Darkm777 (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Casa Tua Camden

Casa Tua Camden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable local cafe. Only sources are self-published blogs and brief references in local newspaper. Salsareans (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United Kingdom. Salsareans (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Zambezi FM Radio

Zambezi FM Radio (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 created this article in good faith, but after several years there is still no evidence of significant independent coverage. All sources remain limited to the subject’s own website or directory listings, and the article was tagged in 2016 for additional citations, which have not materialised. After reviewing Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:RADIO), I now believe Zambezi FM Radio does not merit a standalone article. Unless reliable, in-depth coverage can be produced, I recommend deletion. Any essential factual details can be merged into List of radio stations in Zambia. Icem4k (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Africa. Icem4k (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Nina Power

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Nina Power
• Articles for deletion/Nina Power (2nd nomination)

Nina Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per request by (claimed) article subject at Talk:Nina_Power#Request_to_Delete_Page, so WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is among the things to consider.

This article has some history. There was a delete in 2012 (BLPREQUESTDELETE), and the current article history starts in 2016. David Gerard and Red-tailed hawk WP:BLARed it in December 2023, and the article has been protected twice since 2024 [33] So, Wikipedians, what do you want to do? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and United Kingdom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: this is close enough to being a case of WP:BLP1E that a request for deletion should be honoured. The history of previous requests for deletion means that this claimed request to be the subject should be taken at face value, though it would be even better if they could officially establish their identity. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • "Can someone with moderator status please delete my Wikipedia page on the basis of lack of standing or whatever it is? Like most of the site it's been taken over by a deranged lunatic who believe that lying is a means to an end. I'd really rather not have a page at all." Twitter 10:31 AM · Jul 25, 2025. cagliost (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

    I can understand the frustration, but this person seems well-known to the public at this point. Good or bad, things happened; so long as we report on them neutrally, there should be no issue. We don't censor articles simply because people don't like what they say about them. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

    Nor because they simply don't like Wikipedia. "Like most of the site...taken over by a deranged lunatic" -- this is not a good faith request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

    I assumed that meant the person that sued them... I suppose they could be talking about Wikipedia here, I tend to tread lightly around these requests. I didn't think Jimmy Wales was that controversial. Oaktree b (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

    It's not nice (and IMO incorrect), but fwiw, it was off-WP and not really the "request." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Limited notability. Elixer777 (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC. There are a couple of book reviews of "What do men want" which could support an article about that book. There is a single article about a protest about a speech she gave. The bulk of the article is about a lawsuit, which is WP:ONEEVENT and not a particularly interesting or notable one. cagliost (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  Please look at the article now. There are many reviews of both What do men want? and of her 2009 book One Dimensional Woman. Jahaza (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect: to the article about "What do Men Want", seems to easily pass AUTHOR notability [34], [35], [36], [37]. This was all in about 10 seconds of Google search... I'm having a hard time understanding how she's considered marginally notable? Could redirect to the article about the book I guess, I'm almost ready to argue that she's notable herself. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: She's also gotten critical notice in the USA [38]. Easily passes AUTHOR at this point. I suspect she wants the article deleted due to the issues around the lawsuit, but that helps build the article, her views have been debated in media and that she got sued over them. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

    We don't censor things here, and an article about a non-American, female, 21st Century philosopher really helps the gender bias issues we see in Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

    • [39] is a review of "What do men want" (and not one from a "reliable source"). Agree that an article about "What do men want" is easily supported. cagliost (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

      @Oaktree b We also already have a (well-justified by reviews) article about One Dimensional Woman, so a redirect to What Do Men Want? (book) isn't really fitting. Jahaza (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

      Well, if an author has TWO well-supported articles of her works, that's AUTHOR. I'll change the !vote above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

      How does two notable books pass WP:AUTHOR? cagliost (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

      That's what good authors do, is publish books that get people talking. Their "collective body of work" part in AUTHOR Oaktree b (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

      "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

      These two books are not "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." cagliost (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

      Yes, it is, just the first of her book seems a rather significant work of feminist theory. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

      So significant the article One Dimensional Woman is a stub only 25 words long. Yeah, right. cagliost (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

      That is meaningless. It just means nobody has worked on the article much. There are 90 citations for Ome Dimensional Woman on Wikipedia Library. Simonm223 (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

      And Google Scholar indicates nearly 400 citations of One Dimensional Woman too. Whether you have heard of it and whether Wikipedia editors have properly developed the article is irrelevant. She's a notable academic. And a controversial one. And, frankly, an interesting one for looking at thd intersection of feminism, materialism, anti-commercialism and political reaction. Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

      That something is a stub at this moment is literally meaningless, determined solely by what the specific audience of Wikipedia editors is interested in. We have more words written about lightsabers than the cultures of many African nations. I would wager the African nations are more important. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• At present it looks like the result is going to be Delete. If you create an article on the book before then, we could do a redirect. Otherwise you could create a redirect later. cagliost (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Cagliost, the article on What Do Men Want? (book) was already created in 2023 and the current article on One Dimensional Woman was created in 2024. Jahaza (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per comments by Jonathan A Jones and cagliost - AndreyKva (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Although the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR, most of the article is about a lawsuit, taking it into the territory of WP:ONEEVENT. The subject is only minimally notable. The article history seems problematic for her, so I think we should honour her request.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep the author of two very notable books about which we have articles and which have many reviews in places like The Guardian, The Times, The Times Literary Supplement and academic journals. Her 2009 book is showing up on academic syllabuses and in articles like this from Verso[40]. Arguments that this is a case of WP:BLP1E and of not meeting WP:AUTHOR are clearly wrong.Jahaza (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Turns out we already have articles for her two books. But that does not mean she passes WP:AUTHOR — she doesn't. cagliost (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

    Yes, that actually does mean she passes NAUTHOR. Anyone who writes more than one notable book is (if there's one we usually just merge it to the book). PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

    "Anyone who writes more than one notable book is [notable]". No, that is not true. cagliost (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

    "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

    IMO, 2 books with WP-articles doesn't necessarily equal "a significant or well-known work", context matters. And like (almost) all SNG:s, NAUTHOR falls under "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

    The GNG itself is a rebuttable presumption, so that's not really much; just one of her works seems rather significant in the realms of feminist theory. We can delete anything provided there is consensus, that's the "Presumption". PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

    The point of the SNG is that if we have, say, an author with two books with three reviews each, we presume that they're notable and don't have to dig and dig for additional sourcing to "prove" it. But here, we're well past that point, where there are tens of reviews of her work, syllabi[41][42][43][44] and reading lists[45][46][47][48] that include it, and she's being referenced as a figure with whom people generally interested in the field of feminist theory would be familiar[49] and profiled in general interest, if highbrow, magazines[50]. Jahaza (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as stated above, the author has at least two works that have been critically reviewed. We also have the bit about the lawsuit, which helps show further notability for the individual. She's moved past only being notable for one book, now with a few works critically analyzed and has been talked about in media after the lawsuit. That's miles beyond what we see for most biographical articles here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable by a few different events and we should also note that WP:BLP2E does not really exist. I also find it suspect for a public figure to ask for a deletion if there is critical info that is allowed as per WP:PUBLICFIGURE Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  Reposted on blpn. It really doesn’t sit right with me that we want to delete an article because an account claiming to be Nina powers is arguing the article is “filled with lies and unsubstantiated claims made by a severely disingenuous and malicious third party”.

  if it was a lie, there should be reliable sources to prove it. As is there is more than enough coverage of the trial that pushes the other way. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Easily meets WP:NAUTHOR on the basis of One Dimensional Woman alone for which WP:SIGCOV is trivially easy to demonstrate. I honestly don't understand the deletion rationale beyond that a person claiming to be her dislikes the article. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Also mentioned in a recent LRB essay as a notable example of a specific and influential intellectual milieu: Richard Seymour "emerged from the mid-2000s network of bloggers that also included Mark Fisher, Nina Power and Owen Hatherley". Also mentions her political veiws: "Unlike [Christopher] Hitchens, or indeed Power, whose work has taken a reactionary turn" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpm1989 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not a simple notability question, this is a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE question, and I believe it should be honored for figures at this level. As far as I'm aware, SNGs aren't a factor in whether subjects are eligible for BLPREQUESTDELETE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thing is that Power isn't a "relatively unknown subject" - at least in the community of left-wing theory types I move in she's an incredibly well-known, and controversial, figure. This is part of what I mean about it being trivially easy to source mentions of One Dimensional Woman. That book had significant impact and he later reactionary turn caused a lot of hand-wringing. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  There are plenty of people and organisations that are well-known and controversial among the left-wing theory types I move in - that doesn't really mean anything for notability criteria, which most of them don't pass. - AndreyKva (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as I believe she meets WP:AUTHOR. One Dimensional Woman and Power's ideas were widely discussed and reviewed at the time, and her work was included on many reading lists. Her role at the time as an influential left-wing feminist isn't obvious nowadays from a cursory google. and hasn't been clear to date in the article (which in terms of word count has been dominated by the Turner legal case). Her rightward turn and very different book, What Do Men Want?, appears to have also had traction in many circles on the right and has been widely reviewed. She has also been widely published as a commentator for various mainstream publications at different times. — LittleDwangs (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as author of two notable books. The article is very thin. The authors' two books seem to pass notability for reviews. Cut it down severely maybe - David Gerard (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Heat–Pacers rivalry

Heat–Pacers rivalry (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)

Looks like a completely made up or non notable rivalry based on these teams looking like "the best in the Eastern Conference" for 3 straight years in which Miami won all 3. Non Divisional, basically based on playoffs. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. Delete or find an appropriate Redirect if it is notable enough for this. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, Florida, and Indiana. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment [51],[52],[53],[54],[55], [56]. It's not entirely cruft. Conyo14 (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  Conyo14 I couldn't find it at 2 because I have apparently reached my free article limit despite not reading previously at all, I believe it is there. I would argue these articles basically talk about it when it being hyped as a heating up rivalry. There have been many sports rivalries that have worn down when they were regarded as future top rivalries. And these are basically articles around the time of the rivalry. I will let every editor make up their mind nonetheless. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  Something that helps is disabling JavaScript, but if it's extra pay-walled, perhaps someone else can provide a link. However, I will remain neutral on this topic, only providing links if I find them. Conyo14 (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't understand the statement in the nomination "Non Divisional, entirely based on playoffs." Notable rivalries can be based primarily or entirely on playoffs. One of the most notable rivalries in American sports has been the Yankees-Dodgers from the 1941 to the 1981 before they ever met in the regular season, and were never in the same division, let alone the same league. Another example, this time from basketball, is Celtics-Lakers. And this is clearly not "completely made up" given Conyo's sources. Unless there is a valid deletion rationale, I would say procedural keep. Rlendog (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Rlendog Honestly, yeah. It was bad wording by me that I got from other completely made up rivalries. Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

• Sports "rivalry" articles are often flooded with WP:ROUTINE match coverage. The main notability guideline's event section WP:SBST addresses this by saying:

  Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage.

  The guideline also says in WP:WHYN:

  We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.

  So, can anyone identify one to three WP:SECONDARY independent reliable sources to establish this as a notable recurring event per the guideline requirement? Left guide (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Cerebro

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Cerebro
• Articles for deletion/Cerebro-corporal coefficient
• Articles for deletion/Cerebro (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Cerebro (software)
• Articles for deletion/Cerebro (software) (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Cerebronaut

Cerebro (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)

Outside a brief 'Concept and creation' section, there is nothing (no reception/analysis sections) in the article to suggest this meets WP:GNG (with the usual WP:ATD-R/WP:ATD-M consideration of Features of the Marvel Universe. My BEFORE yields little: there is a master thesis at [57] that has some SIGCOV, but MT is not a sufficient source to establish GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep There are literally more than a dozen VALNET (CBR, ScreenRant) articles substantially about Cerebro spanning several years; even if we only consider each a fraction of a reliable source--and they're really more like comic book issue reviews, for the most part--that's still at least one source towards the GNG. Cerebro has its own Lego set. And Cerebro does get namedropped without further explanation by EW (actually, multiple times if you search the EW archives). Throw in print references like Hall, R. A. (2021). Robots in Popular Culture: Androids and Cyborgs in the American Imagination. United Kingdom: ABC-CLIO. and Dudenhoeffer, L. (2017). Anatomy of the Superhero Film. Germany: Springer International Publishing. and we've got a clear pass. Jclemens (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, Meehan, P. (2009). Cinema of the Psychic Realm: A Critical Survey. Ukraine: McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers. has an X2 plot summary coverage of Cerebro as well. Jclemens (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Valnet sources do not provide notability at all; their presence is a null point in proving notability. A Lego set is not an indication of notability given that is merchandising; a company can market a non-notable character as much as it likes, but if the coverage from third party sources isn't there, it's moot. Both EW and the McFarland sources are plot summary, the Springer source is a trivial mention. The only actual coverage we have in here that isn't plot summary is a single sentence in the Robots in Pop Culture source. Your sources are clearly failing Wikipedia:NOTPLOT and Wikipedia:SIGCOV's definition of trivial sources, with not a single one beating either definition. Even if you argue Robots in Pop Culture counts, that's one source, and given how little else got turned up, I doubt there's more, and one source does not make an article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  1) WP:VALNET is 1) a video game notability discussion, not specific to cinema or comics, and 2) doesn't even say that about video games. If you look, it's listed as "situational", not deprecated, invalid, unreliable, or any such.

  2) NOTPLOT is about how we write about things. A secondary source that is 100% plot summary is not thereby unusable, but rather is necessarily transformative.

  3) The Robots in Popular Culture reference is not a single sentence. Rather, it's a two-page article on Cerebro/Cerebra spanning pages 103-104. Your mischaracterization is hard to square with reality. What single sentence did you find instead of the actual entry on Cerebro?

  4) The fact that a fictional element has been rendered into a concrete form for sale absolutely constitutes "real world" impact. My take on this, User:Jclemens/FICT, has been consistent on this for well over a decade. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  1. I will note Wikipedia:FILM also tends to have a similar, if stricter view on Valnet. Also, not sure what you mean by WP:VALNET not mentioning this when it outright states: "In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability due to concerns over their content farming. "
  2. NOTPLOT still applies when all of the sources you've grabbed are plot summaries. What article are we going to have that wouldn't just be all plot summary if all the sources have is plot summary?
  3. The Robots in Pop Culture source is all plot summary, barring the one sentence at the end. There's very little actually significant in terms of its coverage.
  4. Your opinion is not a policy on how merchandise should be treated in regards to notability. Even in just past discussions, merchandise has repeatedly not been considered viable for demonstrating notability.

  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  1) You're treating as guideline an essay, and ignoring its nuance. For example, regarding ScreenRant, it notes: Considered "marginally reliable" per 2021 RfC on WP:RSP. May be inappropriate to cite for controversial statements in BLP pages, but source is deemed reliable enough for other uses. Sometimes spelled as "Screenrant". That's not a never.

  2) I shouldn't have to educate you on how to create an article, but here goes. If plot summaries in independent RS'es establish notability, then other sources--such as Valnet--can be used to flesh out appropriate details, per WP:NNC and thus easily making an article by, for example, copying tidbits from reviews that don't constitute non-trivial coverage. Did you really not understand this be the case before? I'm genuinely curious.

  3) It's an article that takes up two pages in a dead-tree book that's independent of the franchise. For you to double down on characterizing it as a single sentence is inappropriate and smacks of motivated reasoning, and calls into question all your characterizations of sourceds. Are you so interested in "winning" that you're willing to downplay sourcing? Explain to me how that's not BATTLEGROUND?

  4) Never said it was. I said it's how it should be. The fact that Wikipedia defines notability in a picayune manner that entirely ignores things like, oh, major corporations investing money trying to sell a product based on a fictional element continues to be wrong, and I continue to bring it up whenever relevant. You're welcome to disagree, of course. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

  Situational means we can and should review best articles, case by case. Can you link here all VALNET or other articles you consider to be helpful for establishing notability? I'd be happy to review them. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Here's four ScreenRants pages that highlight Cerebro, out of ~25 that mention it 1, 2, 3, 4, Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  I feel we'll have to agree to disagree on a few of these points, but I will clarify that I'm not trying to "win", at least in the way you're phrasing it. I'd appreciate not being accused of BATTLEGROUNDing just because I disagree on your interpretation of the guidelines. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

  Just on two specific points: The Springer source comments on the artistic rendering of Cerebro in the X-Men film(s) and how that impacts the character of Professor X, so some non-plot stuff. And how ever we stand on the impact of the appearance of the Lego set itself, this has been noted by third-party sources like this. Daranios (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Professor X, where Cerebro is mentioned substantially in relation to his character, and thus seems to be a valid AtD. Sources don't seem to exist discussing this aspect in depth by itself. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree since most of the coverage in the article isn't covering significant real-life analysis of the character. Galaxybeing (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per the claims of @Jclemens: or start a section for items at Features of the Marvel Universe and merge it there as I can't find any other section there that would take its information. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment The Lego Cerebro is reported in secondary sources like this. Another web article on the topic is here. Daranios (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Mutants and Mystics, p. 207-210, compares Cerebro to real-world (if esotric) programmes. Daranios (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The Unauthorized X-Men, p. 49, criticizes the depiction in the film, "(Trans)National X-Factor: Patrick Stewart, Britishness and the Promotion of "X-Men"" analyzes the look. The Ages of the X-Men, p. 120, gives some analysis as "techno-fetish" compensation for Professor X' disability. "The Allegorical X-Men: Emblems, Comics, and the Allegorical Potential of Text/Image Hybrid Genres" interprets the name. Daranios (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• Merge per Rtkat3. Features of the Marvel Universe would be ok, but I think Professor X has described this in-line with better context. Whatever the target I know people will search for this but it really isn't separately notable from the X-Men. We can select a main target and then have a "see also" for X-Men, Professor X, etc. Archrogue (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Professor X. I believe taking the listed sources together a full article can be written which also fullfils WP:NOTPLOT, and therefore notability is established. A significant portion of the commentary on Cerebro is in relation to Professor X, though, so I also would have no objection to a proper merge there on the basis of WP:PAGEDECIDE. Daranios (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Keep per the claims of Jclemens 👑 KingBegger · 💬 · ⚔️ 10:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect per the source analysis by Pokelego999. Unreliable sources and plot summaries are insufficient to write an article that meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOT. I would also support merge as compromise. Wikipedia becomes a WP:BATTLEGROUND when we use personal opinions that are inconsistent with WP:CONSENSUS based policies and consistent best practices. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Brad Marston

Brad Marston (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)

AfD to enforce draftification as it is > 3 months. Page had significant LLM, and Scaling.ai thinks it still has. While he passes notability as APS Fellow, none of his career and awards are sourced. Original editor has poor track record, no indication of attempts to improve. If someone wants to edit so WP:HEY applies please do. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  Courtesy ping of DMacks who suggested draftification. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC).
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. I added a reference to confirm that he is president-elect of the American Physical Society. Non-controversial information (the year he graduated, for example) can be sourced to primary references. I think that any traces of AI-generated text are gone now. He's clearly notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Hoffman Street (Potchefstroom)

Hoffman Street (Potchefstroom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet GNG and can be merged under Potchefstroom City. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

49erFX

49erFX (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)

Newly created content fork of 49er (dinghy). The article contains no information not available in the other article. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The articles 49er and 49erFX constitute two different classes of boat. These two articles are seperate olympic classes and are recognised seperatley by World Sailing. If the 49erFX page constitutes a content fork, than the ILCA 7, ILCA 6, and ILCA 4 dinghies should all be counted as content forks of the ILCA page. The 3 rigs within the ILCA hull all are counted under 1 class association, as are the 49er and 49erFX. The article for the 49er contains only 1 sentence about the 49erFX which does not constitute appropriate coverage. While the 49erFX's hull specifications are shared with the 49er, the difference in rig size is mentioned within it's article constituting seperate discussions. This, once again, mirrors the situation between the several rigs of ILCA, and the 49erFX's article abides by the rules layed out by the existance of 4 articles for 1 hull size. The deletion of the 49erFX's article would contradict this rule andresult in unfair bias against women's classes in sailing. Fin.Seaman (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Nepal A cricket team

Nepal A cricket team (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 coverage on independent reliable sources other than the WP:ROUTINE coverage, thus fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Just played 3 official international matches, WP:TOOSOON anyways... Vestrian24Bio 09:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 09:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Influence of severe weather during 2020 on American politics

Influence of severe weather during 2020 on American politics (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:COATRACK of separate incidents having separate, often minor or temporary effects, mostly government taking short-term measures, as is normal with severe weather. No indication of how the severe weather in 2020 had a general or major effect on politics in the US, or how this was anything else than what happens in every country, every year, when there is some severe weather. Fram (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Almost entirely WP:SYNTH. Nothing is cited tying these various weather and political events together. Yes, severe weather events did lead to some laws and political controversies, as happens every year in every country, as nom points out. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Keep — Here are several sources that explain connections between the weather and politics. Oh…and here is an article by CNN specifically connecting 2020 weather events to politics and the 2020 Presidential election. Here is an academic article specifically on how weather events 2012–2020 affected the US presidential elections. Must I continue? Very clearly not a synth topic and clearly not a coatrack as suggested by the deletion votes above. In fact, it is would no more “coatrack” or “synth” than everything listed in the 2020 in climate change article, as there is no source connecting all the parts of that article together. This is a general-sum topic on how severe weather influenced and changed politics during the year 2020, whether it led to the creation of new legislation, new state of emergency declarations, or even how it started misinformation and political issues. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  Keep per WeatherWriter. ^EF⁵ 13:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  That article about 2012-2020 is about one state, and is not about "severe weather" but about rain. The CNN article is even worse: "Bad weather is one problem the 2020 election won’t have" is the actual title. It does briefly discuss the effect of rain during election day in earlier elections. Basically, these articles may support an article on "influence of the weather on American elections", but not the current article. Fram (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  2021 Texas power crisis, Misinformation about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, and TORNADO Act are three full-on Wikipedia articles regarding politics and severe weather. Mind you, severe weather means anything weather event that poses a risk to life or property. Even a generic rain shower can kill people, to the point where the NTSB investigated a crash in "moderate rain", which led to recommendations to change the California state law. Hurricane Helene last year was described as the "flashpoint" for the entire 2024 Presidential election as well. United States House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina existed to investigate Hurricane Katrina, aka a severe weather event. There is absolutely clear sources for a "influence of severe weather on American politics" article...It is already started in draftspace. This is just a yearly-child article of what will be the parent article....Literally no different than how Politics of climate change exists (parent) and how 2020 in climate change#Political, economic, cultural actions exists (child article/child section of the year articles). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  Do you actually have any articles about the "Influence of severe weather during 2020 on American politics"? Not "a state of emergency wasa declared" or "some polling booths were moved / kept open for an hour longer", but actual articles about the topic of this article? Fram (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  [58][59][60][61][62] Those are all direct connections between severe weather disasters in 2020 and American politics. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  I can't access the first (paywall). Second is a law about firefighters, that's not "influence on politics". A politician visiting a storm-stricken region[63] doesn't show an influence on politics. This is an investigation into companies. None of this shows how the severe weather actually influenced politics, just that government governs, including reacting to all kinds of events. It's, as said, a coatrack of unrelated news reports on different levels of government, not an article based on secondary sources about the "influence of " etcetera. No other sources have tied these news events together or treated them as if they are part of one subject, Wikipedia is the only one one turning these into one subject. Fram (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  So, you just stated a state congressional investigation into a company over their response into Hurricane Isaias does not whatsoever indicate that severe weather influenced politics? Gotcha... I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that fact, as I think you may be one of the only people who do not believe the above sources indicate that politics were influenced by severe weather. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  That's an essay, by the way. And not one I remotely agree with. — ^EF⁵ 00:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: A bit much SYNTH going on. As explained, the articles aren't about American politics and severe weather, more of a local weather event and how bad it was on a local level. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. There's way too much irrelevant detail here: "that tally is surpassed only by the Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023 with 134, the 1974 Super Outbreak with 148 and the 2011 Super Outbreak with 219." "Soon afterward, Isaias reached its peak intensity, with maximum 1-minute sustained winds of 90 mph (150 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 986 millibars (29.1 inHg)" "For example, a man allegedly set fires in Glide, Oregon, after a Douglas Forest Protection Association member refused to give him a ride to town". If this article is going to work, you need to cut all the irrelevant crap that's about meteorology, history, or causes that are unrelated to politics. Then there's "The legislation passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives 89-11 in March, but failed to pass the Oklahoma Senate in April 2020", which is about pretty generic safety information, not really something political. That's what makes this seem particularly like synthesis. You bring up the New York legislature ("state congressional" does not exist) investigating a utilty, but this also seems like government working like it should, not "influence on politics". This doesn't have any relationship to tornadoes resulting in relocation of voting sites and extended hours, which seems pretty mundance. You bring up a bunch of sources above about climate policy, election day turnout, and perceptions of climate risk, but even though there are in fact connections between weather, climate, and politics, that doesn't have anything to do with "Assisting members were provided personal protective equipment to reduce the risk of exposure to COVID-19. At emergency shelters, masks and gloves were provided to residents." Mere government response isn't politics. I see literally nothing in the Easter Outbreak section that is politics-related. Gosh, I legitimately came into this writing a Comment without a !vote to recommend trimming the fat thinking something could be done with this, but as I read and wrote more it got worse. Seriously, what in the Hurricane Laura section has anything to do with politics? Unbelievable amount of irrelevant details, and the president visiting the area is not an influence on politics, at least not any that can be connected in an encyclopedic way to all the other topics. I do appreciate that you've started a draft on the bigger picture rather than 2020 events in particular, but you should keep it focused, not a coatrack. Reywas92^Talk 14:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Reywas92: To answer your question on what does Hurricane Laura have to do with politics? [64][65][66][67] + Congressional bill, FEMA funds, Louisiana state bill (with news article). It appears maybe a rewrite is needed, but absolutely Hurricane Laura influenced and affected American politics. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the government does typically provide recovery funding, but as we've said, government response isn't the same as influence on politics. Disaster relief redirects to Emergency management but I could imagine an article that covers the broader politics of diaster relief in the US. Perhaps Hurricane Laura should include the timing with the RNC, perhaps there could be an article on Trump admin disaster response and FEMA, but existence of these sources still doesn't mean there's a connection between that and fires and tornadoes of the year. — Reywas92^Talk 15:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Reywas92: All the meteorology fat has been deleted from the article. I hope you reconsider your delete !vote. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, a lot of the article is still just diaster response rather than an influence on politics. Then combining that with a NOAA budget and technical NTSB report is too disparate, a lot of random facts that aren't related to each other or even the topic at hand. — Reywas92^Talk 15:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

It's still too much SYNTH at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, you are just straight up wrong. Influence literally means to affect, control, exert power, or change. A hurricane affects the government and causes a state of emergency. That state of emergency is directly a cause of the hurricane. No hurricane = no state of emergency. No hurricane = no disaster funds. No hurricane = no government action. The government does not have to help, but they choose to..more specifically they are influenced into helping. The disaster (and their constituents affected) influences politicians into helping. So yes, disaster relief is influenced by severe weather disasters. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

That's synthesizing things that aren't said in the articles you post, that's the point. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not. California governor signs state of emergency due to wildfires. I am not synthesizing anything. At this point, I should go into the state of emergency Wikipedia article and delete all references to natural disasters/severe weather events, since everyone here seems to indicate that declaring a "state of emergency" for a natural disaster has no connection to said natural disaster. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

California isn't the US Federal gov't though... This goes all over the place. Oaktree b (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

A state of emergency after a fire... is what the government does. Climate change or not. That's how they get money active and send help, by declaring a state of emergency. Oaktree b (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

It is, but it is still a political directive that would not have occurred unless the disaster occurred. @Oaktree b: You mentioned "California isn't the US Federal gov't though... This goes all over the place", because American politics are not just national politics. The Politics of the United States article specifically talks about federal, state, and local politics. The first sentence of this article states, "During 2020, several severe weather disasters...affected American federal, state, and local politics..." This discussion has always been regarding federal, state, and local political involvement. If you thought it was just national-level, then you might want to revise some previous statements or thoughts, since it has been all three. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't need a condescending dictionary definition. Moreover, just because a hurricane influenced a government action doesn't mean it influences politics. Even if politics can be a broad concept and politicians are involved in disaster response, do not conflate the very different aspects of routine news of emergency declarations and recovery funding with electoral politics and peoples' political views like the sources in your vote touch on. It's synthesis to combine all of these aspects where the sources don't do so and I don't see an encyclopedia article here. Again, a US-specific disaster relief article might be great, but don't have it just be a list of disparate examples. — Reywas92^Talk 15:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Draftify I know an article like this could exist but in its current state I agree it's a bit of a coatrack. A lot of this could be condensed down to one or two tables for laws passed at the local/federal level and for disaster declarations; cost is more or less irrelevant if this article has no real meat on its bones. Departure– (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. There is likely a valid article to be had on the impact of climate/weather on politics, probably even at a country level. I mean, there's a decent argument to be had that the Midwestern US is as we know it today due to extreme weather triggered by a volcanic explosion in SEA.) I did find the Nazi reference in a keep vote... a little out there if I'm being honest, but it does remind me of another city whose fate was changed by clouds. Anyways. Yes, weather and extreme weather events can have a massive impact on politics, but it happens very gradually, and less in a "Polls were open and disaster relief was given" way and more of a "what happens to a region impacted by droughts or to a regime when a hurricane kills 300,000 of their people" way. This article is a coatrack of every time a major storm happened in the US in 2020 and it prompted any form of government response, then synthed into one article. I'd have normally been okay with draftification as an ATD... but given how long it takes for the impacts of weather on a country's politics to be discussed in sources, even if there is something here it's not going to be a viable article topic for years if not decades. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 16:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  Where the heck do you see a Nazi reference (/gen)? ^EF⁵ 17:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  [68]The government does not have to help, but they choose to..more specifically they are influenced into helping wikilinked to Government of Nazi Germany. I'm a afraid I don't quite get it either. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 17:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  Might be a reference to the Battle of Stalingrad, where Germans were notoriously under-prepared for the weather by their government. ^EF⁵ 17:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  It was a reference to the fact governments don't have to help people, but can rather be evil: "Yes, the government does typically provide recovery funding". Bad reference now that I think about it, but still, that was the idea being replied to: Just because the government helps, doesn't mean it is politics, with the link to give a clear example of a government that murdered people, rather than helping people. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  No, you’re all good! Was just a bit confused about what it meant. :) ^EF⁵ 17:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. As pointed out above, there is an incredible amount of trivial, tenuously related material present on the article page. Notwithstanding the issues with notability, there is a cause to TNT and restart the article.  GuardianH  21:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

King of the South (film)

King of the South (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence filming actually took place, sources are all indicating filming will happen, does not meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 09:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

https://urbanbridgez.com/2019/01/14/master-ps-king-of-the-south-to-be-released-via-lionsgate/ Filming took placec in 2019 KingArti (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Master P#Film and television career. As an apparenly unreleased film, per WP:NFF it should not have an article of its own. If the film does get released in the future, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Redha Al-Abdullah

Redha Al-Abdullah (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 a shred of notability. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom 👑 KingBegger · 💬 · ⚔️ 10:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I know WP:BEFORE exists but it's hard to do when the sources are going to be in Arabic (you must be this rich and this old before your games in Saudi Arabia are covered in English). Do the Saudi sources cover their local players or is it just another Ronaldo love-in? Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Hassan Al-Musallam

Hassan Al-Musallam (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 a shred of notability. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom 👑 KingBegger · 💬 · ⚔️ 10:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Mason County Historical Society

Mason County Historical Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was originally created in 2007. In June of the same year, it was mentioned on the talk page that this article was likely not appropriate for Wikipedia, namely under notability. A Google search on this Society lists either primary sources or self-published sources. It is also noted here in 2016 that this article violated WP:COPYPASTE in an older version of the article, requiring cleanup. Unfortunately, based on all the available historic evidence and available sources (or lack of reliable ones), I think deletion appears to be the only logical option currently. 11WB (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. 11WB (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, History, Organizations, and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some references, some of which refer to the museums operated by the society rather than to the society itself, but it's all the same organization. An acknowledgements page in a book talks about the society and its photographic resources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  References added appear to strengthen the articles notability. A few of the references however may be inaccessible to editors in certain regions as highlighted here. More opinions on whether they go beyond trivial mentions would also be welcomed. 11WB (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep I have added significant information and sources to the article. One of the sources "Michigan Business Registry, Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, State of Michigan" is a reliable source but crappy technology/usablity, as it does not allow for the listing to be linked to. What are the solutions? Screenshot? Myotus (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Vietnamese people in Turkey

Vietnamese people in Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The seconder of the proposal for deletion says “can't find any sources except for fundraising after a disaster” and I think this is a good rationale because it shows that the subject is not notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Vietnam and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

What does this mean? What is your policy based rationale and who is this seconder? JMWt (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I originally proposed this for deletion using the PROD process but it was unprodded because my reason was not good enough. However before it was unprodded @Bearian seconded the PROD with the reason above which I think is very good. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep - WP:CSK criteria 1: absence of deletion rationale. The nom hasn't completed WP:BEFORE and the nomination appears to be on the basis of the opinion of some unidentified third party. JMWt (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Why do I need to research this further when @Bearian has already done a very good job of it? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Because that’s how the system works, friend. If someone else has reasons to nominate a page for delete then they can nominate it. If you want to do the nomination, you have to have a reason. Which basically means you have to have made an effort to find sources. JMWt (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Procedual Keep without prejudice : the rationale should be stated in the nomination, not just vaguely gestured at. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  “not notable” is stated Chidgk1 (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE since Wikipedia is not a repository of every intersection of nationalities in the world. Geschichte (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - I did a before search and literally found nothing except a couple of news stories about Vietnamese people living in Turkey who were giving to charities after two disasters – one in Turkey and one in Vietnam. Please add 3 reliable sources if you can. I have "no skin in this game." I'm willing to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Dinesh Victor

Dinesh Victor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most references are either primary (company websites, SIP Academy) or affiliated/promotional (e.g., CEOInsights, which profiles company executives in a non-independent, advertorial format). No in-depth biographical coverage found in independent media. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Gujarat, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Paragon Studios

Paragon Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Hardly any coverage besides its closure, fails WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to NCSoft#Former. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Mohit Marwah

Mohit Marwah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Fashion, India, Delhi, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and New York. Zuck28 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR even WP:NBASIC, also wikipedia is not WP:INHERITED. Baqi:) (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep He had lead roles in two notable (if average) films, so just meets WP:NACTOR. See WP:ICTFSOURCES for reliable sources for Indian films - there are additional, reliable sources in the articles about the films which could be added here. It appears that he is now a managing director at a university - this [69] is not a reliable source (being sponsored content and full of peacockery), but if a reliable source could be found, that info could be added to the article to bring it up to date. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep The subject meets WP:NACTOR with lead roles in two feature films. I can find references which are enough to support the case. Sooterout (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  Which of the sources, demonstrates that these two roles are lead roles? Zuck28 (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep The actor did have significant roles in Fugly and Raag Desh. In fact, in the latter, the subject was featured on the theatrical poster, which strongly suggests that he was one of the central characters. In Fugly as well, the actor played a major role that received attention and analysis in reviews by film critics.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting, in my individual capacity as an uninvolved admin, per WP:REOPEN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Fugly and Raag Desh. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  There are no sources to verify that these roles are significant to pass NACTOR. Zuck28 (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  The reviews in RS listed on the articles for both films consistently mention Marwah. I would consider this enough to verify that his roles in the films are significant enough for NACTOR. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Source Analysis.
  • Source 1 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
  • Source 2 passing mention
  • Source 3 passing mention
  • Source 4 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
  • Source 5 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
  • Source 6 Promotional for debut release. Short article on who subject is related to and how the subject came to limelight before debut.
  • Source 7 Interview. Non-Independent of the subject.
  • Source 8 Same promotional article with same content as Source 6. Same publishers.
  • Source 9 about Subject's wedding
  • Source 10 passing mention.
  • Source 11 page no available.
  • Source 12 Non-Independent of the subject,
  • Source 13 Same as source 6
  • Source 14 article is about Akshay Marwah. Nothing on the subject.
  • Source 15 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
  • Source 16 promotional article about the subject being launched in debut Fugly.
  • Source 17 passing mention
  • Source 18 passing mention
  • Source 19 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
  • Source 20 just an image of subject dressed in Dior Homme
  • Source 21 images of subject in fashion.
  • Source 22 subject walk the ramp for Fashion designer.
  • Source 23, Non-independent of the subject as new face of 'Provogue'. RangersRus (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Per RangersRus source analysis. Clearly lacks in-depth coverage. Svartner (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cyrobyte (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: weakly pass wp:NACTOR 👑 KingBegger · 💬 · ⚔️ 10:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• delete the actor has only two films, and there are no reliable sources to affirm that he has lead roles in them. also, we have to be aware of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Almost all the sources about the subject look like puff pieces. Other sources are not about him (they seem promotional/PR as well), they are about the films, and general gossip sites/tabloid-like coverage. In essence, actor fails WP:NACTOR (only two films, we cant be sure about lead roles), and there is not significant coverage in reliable sources, failing general notability guidelines as well. In case the actor becomes notable in the future, the article can be created again. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Start to Feel

Start to Feel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article has a lack of sources, except for a chart peak and different country itunes. Possible redirect is needed. Majash2020 (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Majash2020 (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Weak Keep — There is evidence of widespread coverage although it is a little light.[70][71][72] In combination with charting positions as per WP:NALBUM, I think notability requirements are satisfied. The article itself could do with a good bit of work though. sksatsuma 13:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sksatsuma 13:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Charting is not enough to prove notability, it's just an indicator that an album should be notable. DJ Mag is considered a reliable source, but the reference is a little more than a mention. There is no consensus about the reliability of Vice. Dance Music NW looks good as a source, but its reliability is unknown. I don't think there's enough to prove notability, but it's close. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: WP:NMUSIC does say that it may be notable if "The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart." however it also says that "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and I think that's the question here - is enough in the sources given above and maybe the odd interview that the article will ever reach beyond a stub? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Dawn Evans

Dawn Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable person who, while elected to the state legislature, left the state before taking office, fails GNG. Talthiel (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: WP:NPOL says that notability "applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them". So, even though she never took office, I believe the article has sufficient notability.

Notaoffensivename (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The thing is she will never assume office, she left the state before she could. They even held a special election recently because her leaving caused the seat to be vacant upon the opening of the 2025 New Hampshire legislative session. Talthiel (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete. If she never held office and never will due to the aforementioned special election, I fail to see how she is notable enough to require an article. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2024 New Hampshire House of Representatives election. Yue🌙 22:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep I created this page per WP:NPOL which says that notability "applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them". Moondragon21 (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  The key word is "yet". Evans will never assume office as she left the district to live elsewheree, and bar being elected in that new area, she is otherwise not notable. Talthiel (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Does meet WP:NPOL, when it states: "This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them", which this sentence specifies winning an election to a notable seat, but haven't been seated which this can clarify Evans being notable. There is the list List of members-elect of the United States House of Representatives who never took their seats, and all of them have blue links, and the list includes people who have not held offices before and were just member-elects to their first public office that they won the election for. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Reply. Election to a national legislature is far more notable than election to a subnational legislature, particularly a legislature with very small constituencies. A cursory glance at the individuals at the list you mention shows that many of them would qualify under different notability guidelines. Jack Swigert was an astronaut. Samuel Marx was a member of the New York City Council. Even in cases where I think notability may not otherwise be present, Luke Letlow was a particularly prominent COVID death. The articles are not X was elected to Y and then resigned before anything happened. Do you have three really good sources that back up Dawn Evans having a stand-alone article?--Mpen320 (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:NPOL question aside, are additional sources likely to exist for WP:NOPAGE purposes? If all the article can ever say is "X is a politician who was elected in Y year, but refused their seat", then a redirect to the election article with a note they refused to be seated is sufficient. My experience with writing articles for NH state representatives, of which I have done several, is that non-incumbent/non-controversial candidacies themselves typically do not receive much coverage due to the nature of the state house. Curbon7 (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

  This is what I was thinking too. Certainly passes WP:NPOL, but we should consider a redirect per NOPAGE. I had a challenge even finding significant coverage that explained the subject's refusal to be seated and minimal coverage about the election itself. As examples, the article (as it existed on July 6), has a mention that the subject is a small business owner, but nothing more and there are certain attestations attributed to the local Democrats page, which I wasn't able to find a better source. - Enos733 (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  Redirect Based on my above comment. Curbon7 (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion of WP:NOPAGE concerns.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2024 New Hampshire House of Representatives election. Article will be a permastub and NOPAGE better applies in this case. मल्ल (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2024 New Hampshire House of Representatives election as an alternative to deletion. As far as the part of WP:NPOL stating "applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them", I believe that is meant to clarity it is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to create an article for a state legislator-elect and thus we can avoid numerous AfDs for people who will (in 99.9% of cases) take office within a few weeks. I do not believe it means that every state legislator-elect is inherently notable even when there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I consider this a BLP1E situation (if that) and so I think a redirect is the best approach. Such an approach is also in line with WP:NOPAGE. --Mpen320 (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - that's current policy. When the consensus changes it should be obvious. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2024 New Hampshire House of Representatives election per my comments earlier. --Enos733 (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to the 2024 election. The words have not, and will not mean very different things. From NPOL, have not yet assumed office implies that they will, and if an individual will never assume office then there is no claim to WP:LASTING notability. Agree that the wording at NPOL is used to avoid AFDs weeks before the individual assumes office. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: it’s my understanding from Bearcat that it’s not enough to keep an article, even if the subject won an election, if the article basically states the subject exists, the end. Which this article basically does. So I’m leaning towards redirect. Nnev66 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is almost even split between Keep here and Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2024 New Hampshire House of Representatives election: per above comments, per wp:NPOL 👑 KingBegger · 💬 · ⚔️ 10:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Ditto Insurance

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Ditto Insurance
• Articles for deletion/Ditto Insurance (2nd nomination)

Ditto Insurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A run-of-the-mill insurance agent startup whose claim to fame appears to be the fact that they raised $500,000 from Zerodha. Sources are a mix of trivial announcements, passing mentions and sponsored articles. Created by a UPE; also both "Keep" voters from the first AfD have since been blocked. Yuvaank (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. In its current form, it fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Not even an agent, just an online broker passing traffic on to others. Nothing notable at all. Nathannah • 📮 16:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Juan Polainas

Juan Polainas (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 see no indication that this film was notable. It appears to be very little mentioned anywhere. BD2412 T 03:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Mexico. BD2412 T 03:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Added a few sources; the film is very much mentioned in various books about Mexican film, and Mexican film and Revolution, at least. Entry in Wilt. It has a number of interesting features. The plot can be developed but only if it is kept. Very notable cast and director. The page could be redirected to the director, but that would be detrimental to the reader. - Eva Ux 09:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • The key word here, though, is "mentioned"; aside from the David Wilt source (which provides a reasonable paragraph of coverage, not by itself enough), everything that has been added appears to be, as far as I am able to see from the Google snippets, passing mentions of the film. I could be persuaded that this was a notable film, but this amount of coverage does not persuade me. BD2412 T 19:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

    The entry in Historia documental del cine mexicano: 1959-1960 seems more or less of the same size as the one in Wilt and can hardly be called a "passing mention". - Eva Ux 21:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Bahruz Samadov

Hello. Bahruz Samadov's article has no encyclopedic value. This article was deleted from the original language version - Azerbaijani section. Freiheiten (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - dissident whose article has some sources. The article might have been deleted for political reasons. We need a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - "no encyclopedic value" is not a deletion rationale per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC nor is that it was deleted from another wiki, as they all run independently. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 08:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: per above 👑 KingBegger · 💬 · ⚔️ 10:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

West Side (San Francisco)

West Side (San Francisco) (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 have been unable to discover any further sources to sustain this article per WP:GNG. The lack of any substantial sourcing for the history and or significance appears to me to be a product of WP:SYNTH. While articles that might fit WP:POPULATED are evaluated on a case by case basis, and I can affirm a somewhat amorphous designation of a "west side", the state of coverage present is not enough to justify its notability. BriefEdits (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to either San Francisco#Neighborhoods or a new entry in List of neighborhoods in San Francisco. We don't need a separate article for a vaguely-defined area that encompasses half the city. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: I think keep - it meets geographic notability similar to e.g. Westside (Los Angeles County) or West Side, Chicago. WP:GEOFEAT supports this article. Asteramellus (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The article does meet notability requirements and the term is used in numerous government, media and community contexts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldrock95 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete content. Not an actual neighborhood, even if there's a vague idea in San Francisco of the western neighborhoods that were historically developed from the Outside Lands west of the Western Addition. Still, the Richmond, Sunset, Parkside, etc neighborhoods are very much separate entities and overall, an article on this topic makes about as much sense as an article on North of Market, San Francisco. Possible Redirect to San Francisco#Neighborhoods, but delete the name "West Side" from that section, as this is a neologism I've only seen in the context of this new Wikipedia article. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Unsure however there are sources which use the term West Side (sic) suggesting they believe it is more than a neologism. 1 and 2 and 3. I’m not !voting as I’m not able to parse these sources, their reliability or even if they’re talking about the same thing. JMWt (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Samata (fashion entrepreneur)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Samata (fashion entrepreneur)
• Articles for deletion/Samata (fashion entrepreneur) (2nd nomination)

Samata (fashion entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable fashion designer. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Acoustical (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, Ghana, and United Kingdom. Acoustical (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep A good amount of significant coverage to meets the notability of the subject, pass WP:NBIO. Raj Shri21 (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Could you please point us to specific sources that provide a good amount of significant coverage? Acoustical (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment of sources identified in the first AfD may be helpful in achieving consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

High Commission of Papua New Guinea, London

High Commission of Papua New Guinea, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article merely confirms high commission exists. 2 of the 3 sources are its own website and the other is a directory listing. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Oceania. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep – Found this in news about a renovation project to a property that is part of the mission. Keeping in mind, it is the mission that is notable hear, not the main High Commission building or the Somare House. [73][74][75][76] I know this is all only about one thing, but there is probably more about the mission in academia. – Ike Lek (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

How on earth is a renovation notable? Geschichte (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Historic building being renovated by the PNG mission at a high cost. It got news coverage. I do think the mission is notable for other reasons as well, but this was the easiest one to demonstrate WP:NEXIST with. Ike Lek (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Clancy O'Connor

Clancy O'Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Credits are far too skimpy. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Kansas, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep notable actor has participated in several television series 200.46.55.180 (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Rebuttal. Appearing in single episodes (two in one series) does not make him notable. He would need to play at least a recurring character for that. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Hidari (illustrator)

Hidari (illustrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A google news search only provides a wacom tablet showcase by crunchyroll of him. A japanese source search provides little of the illustrator himself, only the works he is credited on. ExoNeos (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Video games, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Meets WP:NCREATIVE #3. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

2025 Iowa Senate District 35 special election

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/2025 Iowa Senate District 35 special election
• Articles for deletion/2025 Iowa Senate District 35 special election (2nd nomination)

2025 Iowa Senate District 35 special election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Duplicate of 2025 Iowa elections#Iowa Senate District 35 special election. This main page was not created until the end of the prior AFD, and it is the appropriate place for this content. There is absolutely no reason this needs to be a separate page. Sure, the result was a change in party that holds the seat, but there is no precedent that a flipped legislative election must have its own separate article, and all content and sources can be covered in the main article perfectly well per WP:NOPAGE. Reywas92^Talk 02:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Iowa. Reywas92^Talk 02:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep received national attention as mentioned previously. Was created months prior to the end of the previous AfD. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Well nobody's bothered to add any of that limited national attention to this article! And as mentioned previously, the limited election-night attention, which pointed out the fact that the result was a flip rather than any substance about the campaign at all, can be covered at 2025 Iowa elections#Iowa Senate District 35 special election, where all content neatly resides. — Reywas92^Talk 02:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2025 Iowa elections, which already has this info in a more appropriate location. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2025 Iowa elections. Content is already available there. Fade258 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Embassy of Paraguay, London

Embassy of Paraguay, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Article merely confirms it exists with no third party indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Paraguay. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I've tidied up the page. I don't think it's notable, though. Coeusin (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Toi8

Toi8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A search for reliable sources in WP:VG's search engine only turns out a few handful of results regarding his involvement in specific games, not about the artist himself. A google news lookup is largely the same story. ExoNeos (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Video games, Anime and manga, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Passes WP:NCREATIVE #3 due to his significant role in Tokyo Mirage Sessions. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think WP:NARTIST is passed, as he is not the sole character designer for those games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Little Lake, Los Angeles County, California

Little Lake, Los Angeles County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Everything I see, including the cited newspaper clippings, says this is a school and its district, and that's how it (briefly) appears on the topos. Mangoe (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• REDIRECT to Little Lake City School District, which I improved using the newspaper article cited in this article and other sources that I found when trying to establish whether this is a notable topic. The newspaper article establishes that there was a lake, which by the 1950s was dry and being built on. The main focus there is on the early days of the school district. The Arcadia book on Santa Fe Springs has more on that and also fills in that Little Lake was the first name used in 1952 by the homeowners' association that began the movement to incorporate during the huge post-war residential expansion in the area; they soon switched to using Santa Fe Springs, successfully urged the high school district to rename Little Lake High School (now Santa Fe High School; our article does not mention its original name), and the area was incorporated in 1957 as Santa Fe Springs. (See p. 95.) Little Lake was in short a brief precursor name to Santa Fe Springs, and otherwise has never been a distinct area, although the Arcadia book notes that residents wished the new city to correspond to the school district in its boundaries. In addition to the school district and the park and cemetery mentioned in our article, there is a retirement facility named for the lake, but even Little Lake Road has been renamed within Santa Fe Springs. I checked the two names of early residents given in the article, John J. Orr and James Warren Day, and found them mentioned only in proximity to mentions of the school district, not of any distinct area, in Guin's 1907 History of California. The article is synthesis or a misunderstanding; the school district is a better target for the redirect than is Santa Fe Springs, for which "Little Lake" was a very transitory, rejected name. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Redirect in line w @Yngvadottir argument and work. TY for doing that. jengod (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Dakota Central

Dakota Central (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable telecom company; only source may be promotional. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and North Dakota. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Technology, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Fails GNG. LightlySeared (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Article created by a serial sockpuppet who contributed the most to the page even well after they were blocked (and who has made this organization miserable with vile and racist vandalism and harassment here and elsewhere from their IPs being reported to them); otherwise just a small-town communications cooperative which can't really gain much more WP:N just because of how they're organized. Nathannah • 📮 22:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Ronnie Noan

Ronnie Noan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. A redirect to Papua New Guinea at the 1992 Summer Olympics may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Oceania. Let'srun (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Fails GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 13:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Papua New Guinea at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Boxing – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Papua New Guinea at the 1992 Summer Olympics: No SIGCOV, no article. An acceptable ATD as well. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Oakwood Park, Indiana

Oakwood Park, 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)

After the long run of "vacation cottages, ad far as I can tell", this one is quite straightforward. This is now the Oakwood Resort, but it was built by one of the predecessor groups to the UMC in 1893 as "Oakwood Park", campground and meeting center. After several denominational mergers it ended up with the Methodists in 1969, and the prior lodge on the property was replaced by the current hotel building in 1994. THe Methodists ended up selling the property in 2008, and so here we are with a posh resort. All that said, I don't see any great notability as a resort, and it's not a settlement, so I'm afraid it goes. Mangoe (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Too bad. Editor Evking22 already gave up and "retired". AFD rejected/deleted everything he created. Very sad. — Maile (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Indeed, it is sad that he mass-created so many poor articles without bothering do any research or write any substance, and tireless Mangoe has put in so much work to find out what these actually are and remove non-notable – if not blatantly false – pages. This resort/neighborhood appears to be within incorporated Syracuse, Indiana so no basis for the article. Reywas92^Talk 14:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Gisèle Ongollo

Gisèle Ongollo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only reference currently is a database and all I could find elsewhere was a paragraph of coverage at [[77]], but it doesn't appear to be a RS. Let'srun (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sport of athletics, and Africa. Let'srun (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep or redirect to Gabon at the 1984 Summer Olympics#Athletics as an alternative to deletion if there’s consensus against keeping the article – Although most likely non-independent since it comes from the Gabonese Ministry of Women's Promotion, there appears to be significant coverage in this book (more than ~100 words). From what I can see through their limited previews, there appears to be an entire page dedicated to her, titled: "Gisèle ONGOLO, Reine des pistes Gabonaises" [Gisèle ONGOLO, Queen of the Gabonese tracks]. From the book, it says that in 1987, her best year, she won gold medals at the Central African Games in the 100m , 200m and 4 × 100m races. She was apparently part of a Moroccan club.[78] As of April 2015, she was the Vice-President of the "Executive Committee of the African Olympic Athletes Association" [79] Other than sports, she wrote a paper titled "Nature et typologie des conflits interafricain" [Nature and typology of inter-African conflicts] #1157; As of 13 October 2022, she was the director of human ressources for the General Directorate of Public Accounting and the Treasury of Gabon (Ministry of Budget and Public Accounts). [80] This is obviously not a strong keep vote but the above are indications that there might be more out there than what we can find online. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC) Amendments made to my comment. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  Correction: the book source that I linked appears to be from a magazine called Femmes Gabonaises that was republished by the ministry. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Gabon at the 1984 Summer Olympics#Athletics. Fails GNG due to a lack of SIGCOV. I appreciate Aviationwikiflight digging up some non-Olympic accomplishments and references for Ms. Ongollo, but I don't find any of it to be particularly notable and the references brought up appear to be WP:ROUTINE and/or WP:PRIMARY (though I am not 100% sure on the latter due to language barrier issues). A hatnote can be added to the redirect target to point to Ms. Ongollo's participation in the 1988 Olympics and I have no objection to redirecting to 1988 with a hatnote pointing to 1984. Having multiple suitable redirect targets is not a valid reason to choose neither and delete anyway, which also deletes the page history. Frank Anchor 13:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gabon at the 1984 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Since she competed at both the 1984 and 1988 games, regardless of being the flag bearer, it might be best to delete instead, but I would not oppose the redirect. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Competing in multiple Olympics instead of one is not a valid reason to delete instead of redirect. There are remedies available to point out the other games that a person competed in. Frank Anchor 21:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think the chances that Gabon would not have covered their "queen of track" (who has a page of coverage in a book) and one of their only Olympians during the 1980s is 0%. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Also, I haven't looked much myself, but the book source found by Aviationwikiflight has a good deal of text about her: I can read at least 300 words before it cuts me off, and it describes her breaking many national records, winning national championships in Morocco (where she studied), and being the "number 1 Gabonese athlete" for several years. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

    I don't think the Gabonese Ministry of Women's Promotion can be considered as being independent. Let'srun (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

    What would her relation to it be, aside from that she's a woman in Gabon? Does here anyone seriously believe that none of the many newspapers in Gabon covered someone who was known as the "Queen of Track", the number one athlete in the nation, and described in the book as so famous she needed "no introduction" to readers? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. She was a national record-setter, champion in multiple countries, champion in major events at regional tournaments and was widely-known in her country as the "Queen of Track", and we have one piece of SIGCOV. To assume that such an accomplished woman who was considered the best overall athlete in the nation for several years would not have any further coverage, when we have not checked even a single newspaper in the history of her country, is ridiculous. She's clearly notable in Gabon and obviously would've received further coverage during her career. Deleting this is not an improvement to the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Josef Schmidt (wrestler)

Josef Schmidt (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject doesn't meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV, and is also a WP:BLP1E considering the entire basis for notability is participating at a single Olympic games. The only reference currently is a database and I can't find anything better for this subject to meet the notability guidelines (with the name not helping searching efforts). Austria at the 1948 Summer Olympics may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Wrestling, and Austria. Let'srun (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Austria at the 1948 Summer Olympics – yet another LUGSTUB. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Luciano Solís

Luciano Solís (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod. The 2 added sources [81] and [82] are small mentions and not SIGCOV for meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Mexico. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mexico at the 1984 Summer Olympics#Boxing. Fails GNG due to a lack of SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 00:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails GNG 👑 KingBegger · 💬 · ⚔️ 10:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)