Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 22	April 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Woodside Morris Men

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

Blatant promotional nonsense. No indication of notability and no references except for external links to primary sources. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and England. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles of Guru Gobind Singh

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

Undiscussed and unnecessary WP:CFORK. The content already exists at Guru Gobind Singh#Wars. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Sikhism, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hionsa (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not a very experienced Wikipedia editor, but the page WP:CFORK doesn't seem to provide rationale for deletion, as if I've read the guideline correctly then this is an instance of WP:DIFFORK. Stockhausenfan (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:Their no choice left for criterion to make such standalone outfitted statement WP:Keep while their otherworldly Conflict of Interest which should not be premised while carrying on the deletion process for Sikh related sublet WP:Stub— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringroller (talk • contribs) 12:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trish Doan

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

I am the creator of this page. I have felt kinda guilty about this for a while because I think I did a terrible job at it. My reasons for deletion are as follows:

1. Most of the article is based on an web source from the Headbanging Moose, which I realise now is unverifiable/not an interview. In one recent search I found it was citing text from a Tumblr interview (alas that too was inaccessible). Either way; bad source, which makes up most of the article. Also, Hergirlrock and trishdoan.com are primary sources

2. Most of the reliable source coverage about Trish concerns her departure from the band in 2008, or her death in 2017. I feel both of these can be explained just as well in the Kittie band article or in other related articles (i.e. the documentary stuff)

3. When I made this page, I thought I was doing so primarily because I though Trish was an underrated bassist on Funeral for Yesterday and I wanted them to be known for other stuff outside of their struggles. In hindsight and in other words, I was trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I am kinda more accepting of the fact that shit things do happen to people. I recognise the feelings I had at the time (aka when this was made; 2023) reflected my life situation which I didn't think I had a way out of at the time, and as such my edits were kinda projections of that mentality. I'm in a better place now (in part thanks to Funeral for Yesterday, actually) but I still feel as though I failed. If I made things worse, I am sorry.

// Chchcheckit (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, South Korea, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kittie. Thanks to the nominator for being honest. Per Wikipedia's rules for the notability of band members, evidence is needed that Trish Doan accomplished additional notable things outside of Kittie, but that just didn't happen. Info on her early bands and day jobs are fan trivia but don't pass the notability test. On the other hand, her achievements within Kittie, and sadly her death and how it affected the band, are Kittie-specific and can be adequately described at their article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I lean more towards Redirect then: the point about how it affected the band is very much described on Fire (Kittie album) and Doan has mentions in two other album articles (FFY and I've Failed You) anyway. // Chchcheckit (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep well sourced article. If the page cannot be kept, it should be redirected to Kittie. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the article should be kept in tact, so the page should not be deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
understood Chchcheckit (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I don't think deletion is an appropriate decision given the nominator's rationale, and I don't think merging the article is better than the status quo of keeping the article as it is because the rationale doesn't make sense. Paraphrasing but "I think this section can be covered in another article so we should get rid of the whole article" isn't convincing and doesn't make a clear connection to deletion policy. The sourcing seems mostly fine to me because most aren't unreliable and of course a niche musician is going to be covered mostly by outlets in their niche. Having reporting after certain events isn't a disqualifying factor at all either; I'm not sure what is meant by that. Yue🌙 06:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean in the sense that most of the text used to make the body of the article is based on unreliable sourcing so it's like Chchcheckit (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with Kittie: In solidarity with the page creator, Chchcheckit. There are three sections individualizing Trish Doan from her band. "Early life" is based on two sources and both seem to be dubious (hergirlrock.com. and THE HEADBANGING MOOSE), especially as primary sources for this section. "Return to Kittie and Kittie.." is based on self-published source (robmccallumfilms.com) and has a nice but brief sentences on her depression. "Death" is the best section, but it would be sad article if 90% of it is about the subject's death. Most of the information backed up by reliable sources can be merged with Kittie. LastJabberwocky (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "It would be sad article if 90% of it is about the subject's death" is NOT a good reason to delete the page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearwater station (British Columbia)

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

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. No reliable secondary sources cited in the article. WP:N. This "station" is nothing more than a line in a timetable and a dot on a map. 162 etc. (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clearwater, British Columbia § Transportation: This seems like a reasonable WP:ATD, plus I have no luck finding significant coverage to justify the station's noability. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Course of Action

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

There is no evidence of notability. In my WP:BEFORE search, I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Many of the sources are press releases, profile listings, social media posts and unreliable blogs. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC.

Also nominating the band's album and single articles for the same reasons:

Dark Before the Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Treason (A Course of Action album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rocklahoma (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Never There (A Course of Action song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beautiful (A Course of Action song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Who We Are (A Course of Action song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
107 (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Frost 13:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Albums and songs. Frost 13:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This band while not achieving large mainstream success was very active for over 16 years with multiple albums, EP's, and singles. Also, this band participated in numerous large music festivals allover the United States that toured in support of various different mainstream acts. To delete such articles, especially of a group who was active for nearly two decades would be a great disservice. After all, is Wikipedia not an open-sourced community open for individuals to share their knowledge of something that others are not familiar with? I mean no disrespect to the individual who nominated this article for deletion, but I spent well over a week researching this artist to verify all these facts and sources to confirm all the information is factual. The lack of sources from major outlets is due to the fact the band has been inactive for nearly a decade and many sources are long gone and were not saved to the internet archive. But as stated I spent over a week combing through old videos and interviews from the band directly to confirm all the details were true and correct without positive or negative bias. I'm just a fan of music with a goal of preserving the history of artists and bands who left their mark on the industry, and though A Course of Action didn't make a historic mark like The Beatles or Michael Jackson, nearly two decades of activity and releases would be a tragedy to just forget about and label as non-noteworthy. Bruteforce7700 (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a different definition of notability for an article to be accepted - it largely falls on whether multiple reliable, independent, and significant sources exist or not. There doesn't seem to be any that discuss the band or its singles and albums significantly, and none of the sources in the articles contribute to notability:
A Course of Action: 24-7pressrelease.com, acourseofaction.com, airplaydirect.com, amazon.com, broadjam.com, cdbaby.com, crypticrock.com, discogs.com, facebook.com, youtube.com, myspace.com, spotify.com, iheart.com, hickoryrecord.com, mtsmanagementgroup.com, museboat.com, music2deal.com, muzicnotez.com, prweb.com, reverbnation.com, rockrevoltmagazine.com, sellaband.com, songs-that-should-be-mainstream.blogspot.com, sonicbids.com, sromag.wordpress.com, teenviewmusic.com, thehybridband.com, wsfairgrounds.com, backstagelosangeles.net, last.fm, musify.club, prlog.org, rockunderground.tv

Dark Before the Dawn: bandcamp.com, acourseofaction.com, cdbaby.com, crypticrock.com, museboat.com, apple.com, spotify.com, prostudiolive.net, 24-7pressrelease.com, amazon.com, backstagelosangeles.net, broadjam.com, discogs.com, last.fm, prlog.org, prweb.com, reverbnation.com, rockrevoltmagazine.com, shazam.com

Treason (A Course of Action album): acourseofaction.com, echo-asylum.com, reverbnation.com, rockrevoltmagazine.com, crypticrock.com, hickoryrecord.com, music.apple.com, musictalkers.com, myglobalmind.com, open.spotify.com, buffalochip.com, discogs.com, last.fm, prlog.org, prweb.com, setlist.fm, sonicbids.com, unratedmetal.com, youtube.com

Rocklahoma (EP): music.apple.com, musictalkers.com, open.spotify.com, switchbitchnoise.com, web.archive.org, reverbnation.com, acourseofaction.com, hickoryrecord.com, discogs.com, last.fm, prweb.com, sonicbids.com, unratedmetal.com

Never There (A Course of Action song): acourseofaction.com, reverbnation.com, rockrevoltmagazine.com, museboat.com, music.apple.com, open.spotify.com, songs-that-should-be-mainstream.blogspot.com, amazon.com, broadjam.com, discogs.com, last.fm, prweb.com

Beautiful (A Course of Action song): musictalkers.com, myglobalmind.com, spotify.com, switchbitchnoise.com, reverbnation.com, acourseofaction.com, unratedmetal.com, 24-7pressrelease.com, buffalochip.com, discogs.com, last.fm, prlog.org, prweb.com, sonicbids.com

Who We Are (A Course of Action song): acourseofaction.com, echo-asylum.com, reverbnation.com, rockrevoltmagazine.com, broadjam.com, spotify.com, 24-7pressrelease.com, discogs.com, last.fm, prweb.com, sonicbids.com, unratedmetal.com, youtube.com

107 (song): open.spotify.com, web.archive.org, discogs.com, last.fm, prlog.org, prweb.com, reverbnation.com, sonicbids.com

AllMusic [1][2][3], is reliable but is not significant, as it contains nothing more than a credit listing.
Frost 06:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominated and deleted once before in an AfD ten years ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Course Of Action. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I really don't want to delete the page took so much work to assemble, while most of the pages marked for deletion barely have anything. BUT as pointed out there is only one good source AllMusic. There are a couple of interviews but they don't contribute to notability, because they are generated by the subject of an interview. The article can be transferred to https://rock.fandom.com or something similar. LastJabberwocky (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Ratcliff

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

This WP:BLP on a video game developer has had an unresolved references tag for six months. The article is currently sourced to two reviews of games he was apparently involved in creating, which do not provide WP:SIGCOV.

A standard WP:BEFORE (newspapers.com, Google News, JSTOR, and Google Books) fails to redeem, though the search is slightly frustrated by the common name and the fact there is a well-known John Ratcliffe. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roshena Campbell

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

Unelected candidate. Fails WP:NPOL. All sources currently pertain to her candidacy in the 2023 Aston by-election where she was unsuccessful. Sources relating to her local government role do not provide significant coverage. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Politics, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Melbourne is a big city. Its council members are likely to be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely the Lord Mayor but other than that, no other local government members have inherit notability (in my opinion). GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Not only is the Deputy Lord Mayor of Australia's largest city an inherently notable position, but contrary to the claim in the nomination it's also an elected one, which she won in 2024: we even have an article about it at 2024 Melbourne City Council election. She was previously also elected to the council in 2020 and that election, too, is notable enough to have an article: 2020 Melbourne City Council election. Last but not least, it's trivial to find WP:RS that do not involve the 2023 by-election, and here's a selection:

Jpatokal (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES, mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". While she is not Lord Mayor, she is a citywide elected official as Deputy Lord Mayor and ran on a ticket with the incumbent Lord Mayor. The City of Melbourne (population 149,000) is a regionally significant city. That fact, combined with the coverage shown by Jpatoka, tells me that the subject LIKELY warrants an individual article depending on the specifics of the position (i.e. powers/responsibilities). I would need to know these before voting. If this were purely a city councilor who ran in a by-election, I would be a delete vote, so I'm really staking this on citywide officeholder with a real job in regionally significant city who has the coverage Jpatoka has identified.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For context, since Australian municipal structures are a bit odd: the lowercase-c city of Melbourne is Australia's largest, with over 5.2 million people scattered across 31 "local government areas" (LGA). The uppercase-c City of Melbourne is the LGA covering the entire city center, and while the population living within the LGA is relatively low, its Lord Mayor & council wields outsize influence because they directly control zoning etc for all the largest businesses, restaurants, nightlife, transport hubs etc etc, and they're also the closest thing there is to a leader of the entire city.

As a rough US analogy, it would be like if New York City didn't have a single mayor, but instead had a "Mayor of Manhattan", and there were 30 other boroughs, not 4. Jpatokal (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpen320: As far as I am aware from doing a bit of research the deputy Lord Mayor has the same power/responsibilities as a regular council expect they sub in for the Lord Mayor when they are away. For a bit of context, these are some of the sources available for the Deputy Lord Mayor of Sydney [4]. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe this to be closer to an edge case than the AfD nominator. I appreciate User:GMH Melbourne's follow-up descriptor and relation to NYC. I will note that Mark Levine and the other four Borough presidents do have articles, BUT the least populous borough (Staten Island) has 495,747 residents. Prior to reading the reply, I did find the statutory powers given to Deputy Mayors in Local Government Act of 2020 via the Australasian Legal Information Institute. The Deputy Mayor role seems like an at-large city council member a role whose holder is neither presumed or not presumed to warrant an individual article. Once election coverage is removed from citations and what is offered in the AfD (which is about the elections for which we have the articles 2024 Melbourne City Council election and 2023 Aston by-election respectively, not the candidates themselves), there is one local profile in which the subject provides a substantial amount of content, failing the independent of the subject criterion in GNG. I see us in WP:TOOSOON territory for Campbell. I do not think this nomination, if a deletion is found to be appropriate, this AfD should be used in the event of a recreation down the line if/when facts on the ground change.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your line of argumentation is absurd. Campbell is a notable career politician who has been successfully elected twice, contested a nationally notable by-election once, and was covered by national media even before all this. You can't just wave a magic wand and say she's not notable if you ignore all the sources about four separate elections across five years, aka her political career. Jpatokal (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elections by and large (particularly national government by-elections) are notable events. Participants in notable events (i.e. the candidates) are not necessarily notable for participating nor does coverage of their actions in such events make them notable except for unique circumstances (Christine O'Donnell or Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson) in the U.S.) I know Australian equivalents were discussed in the discussion on Wikipedia Talk that you started. I explicitly do not discount an individual article in the future even without WP:NPOL in my determination as your assertion above, that an elected official's political career is getting elected is false. Presumably, if this is the unique circumstance where a local elected official warrants a stand alone article, they would have done things in office other than participate in elections that would be part of their career.
I understand the nominator did not realize the subject was elected to office, but it is not an office that passes WP:NPOL so you need independent coverage. Bullet point #2 is largely quoting the person and thus is not independent of the subject. How would I know that if I ignored it? I have been in multiple AfDs in which you point to the quantity of sources. Quantity is part of WP:GNG, but it is not its totality nor do other considerations such as WP:NOPAGE fly out the window.
You note in your !keepvote Melbourne is the largest city in Australia. She is not the Deputy Mayor of ALL of what can be called Melbourne, just the City of Melbourne as a local government area. Wikipedia's list of local government areas by population notes the City of Melbourne as the 33rd most populous LGA in Australia. The City of Casey is the largest LGA in Victoria. The size of the jurisdiction is not getting you over the top here.--Mpen320 (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already explained above, the Australian cities do not work like American cities. The City of Melbourne is far more important than any of the random suburban sprawl LGAs like Casey, and is responsible for things like defining the vision and goals of the entire metropolitan area. This pattern is consistent across Australian cities: Sydney's suburban City of Blacktown (#4 in Australia) is nearly twice the population of the City of Sydney, but Blacktown's mayor is not notable enough to warrant an article, while the office of the Deputy Lord Mayor of Sydney has its own article. Jpatokal (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I actually do consider what you write in discussions. Did you miss that in addition to asking, I also looked up the statutory powers of the position? I think my past contributions demonstrate not only a strong interest in the subject matter of government and politics, but also the means to research and understand topics. Finally, I have no doubt that the City of Melbourne is more important than Casey. I was replying to the argument made of size, not an argument of prominence. It is Easter weekend so I will be taking a break and letting this AfD play out.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - elected deputy mayor of a regionally important city probably passes NPOL. The rule that unelected candidates don't get articles only applies when they lose election. She won. She lost a different election. Many successful, notable politicians will sometimes lose election. Are we going to delete Franklin D. Roosevelt because he lost election as Vice President? Bearian (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The election she lost was a Federal seat. The election she won is a local councillor which isn’t notable under WP:NPOL. GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. Being the unelected deputy mayor of a city of 150,000 isn't notable. Obi2canibe (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect: it's an elected position and she has been elected to it twice. And as explained above, the City of Melbourne is not a "city of 150,000", but the core of a metropolis of 5 million people. Jpatokal (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Campbell hasn't been elected deputy mayor twice. She has only been deputy mayor since 2024. And even then she wasn't elected directly, she only got the position by riding on the coat tails of incumbent mayor Nick Reece. In the 2020 election she ran as a candidate as an ordinary councillor and received only 58 votes - she only became a councillor because of the votes received by the ticket she was a part of.

If Campbell is the deputy mayor of "a metropolis of 5 million people", then how come only 137,000 people were eligible to vote in the election you claim she was elected at? Is Melbourne stuck in the 19th century where only a tiny fraction of its adult population are eligible to vote? Claiming that Campbell is deputy mayor of Melbourne is like saying that Alastair King is the mayor of London. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, the City of Melbourne is not a "city of 150,000", but the core of a metropolis of 5 million people. A closer equivalence would be the Greater London Authority, although no such body exists in Melbourne. Per The Age, "The lord mayor presides over the Melbourne City Council and is the city's first citizen. Because of the central city's powerful symbolic role, the lord mayor can expect more public attention than the mayor of any surrounding metropolitan or Victorian provincial city. The lord mayor speaks for Melbourne." And remember, notability is not judged on legal powers, but how well they are known. Jpatokal (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Campbell is not the deputy mayor of Greater Melbourne, she is the mayor of the City of Melbourne. These are not the same thing, and therefore the original comment about the population being around 150,000 is not incorrect. Greater Melbourne comprises of 31 Local Government Areas, The City of Melbourne being just one of them. So being the so-called "core" of 5 million people makes no sense. Viatori (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since Greater Melbourne is not a legal entity, the Lord Mayor of the City of Melbourne serves as the city's de facto leader. Jpatokal (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Lord Mayor of Member (nor the Deputy Lord Mayor) has ever exercised power that affected anything outside of the City of Melbourne LGA's boundaries. Nor have they represented anywhere outside of the City of Melbourne LGA's boundaries at functions, events, etc. GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The population of the City of Melbourne was 149,615 at the 2021 census. Please stop saying it has population of 5 million. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I don't think the article should be deleted, and I think the subject has sufficient notability, but it seems the consensus is that Australian deputy mayor pages should be deleted and even I don't agree with the other keep arguments here. Viatori (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think we have clear consensus from previous AFDs that merely having coverage about being a federal/state political candidate or being a local councillor does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. TarnishedPath^talk 12:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Femosphere

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

Fails WP:GNG – The topic lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. No academic or mainstream journalistic coverage establishes “femosphere” as a notable or recognized term. Academic sources cited in the article discuss adjacent but distinct topics (e.g., femcels, dating discourse), not the term itself.

Fails WP:RS/WP:V – The article relies on unreliable or non-independent sources, including YouTube videos, Reddit subreddits, and lifestyle blogs. Many claims are vaguely attributed or not verifiable at all.

Violates WP:FRINGE and WP:OR – The article synthesizes disparate online trends into a unified ideology without support from reliable sources. It presents “femosphere” as parallel to the “manosphere” without demonstrating scholarly or journalistic consensus. This constitutes original research and gives undue weight to an unestablished term.

Violates WP:NOTADVOCACY – The tone and framing of the article reflect ideological positioning. Phrases like “weaponising femininity” and “pervasive misandry” are ideologically charged and lack sourcing from neutral, reliable outlets.

Possible COI – The article was created within a week and appears to be part of coordinated promotion on Reddit. Several posts strongly suggest the article was written or commissioned by an individual promoting the term. This violates Wikipedia’s policies on conflict of interest and promotional content.

Misrepresents sources – The article distorts the argument made in its only scholarly source that actually uses the term “femosphere” (Kay, 2024). That source is a critique, framing the “femosphere” as a reactionary, bio-essentialist, and anti-liberationist discourse that mirrors manosphere logic. It is not a neutral or widely-accepted term. The Wikipedia article removes this critique, violating WP:V and WP:OR, and gives WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe concept coined by a single author. HairlessPolarBear (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing formatting of this page and will list it, procedurally taking no opinion at this time. Skynxnex (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Social science. Skynxnex (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I thank HairlessPolarBear for attempting to contribute, it appears that they are not using the AfD process in the spirit in which it’s intended. As a friendly comment to them, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable, neutral, and objective articles. It is not anybody’s personal soapbox; nor is it a playground for the deletion of information that does not suit one’s agenda. As a good citizen, I find myself compelled to remind HairlessPolarBear that repeated, bad-faith usage of the AfD process could result in a permanent ban from the site.

Because Wikipedia requires me to respond to HairlessPolarBear’s claims, I shall do so – though I note that I would ordinarily save everybody time and energy by simply ignoring baseless assertions.

As a summary of HairlessPolarBear’s assertions, they appear to have employed a ‘spray ‘n’ pray’ approach to Wikipedia guideline violations in the hope that one of them might ‘stick’. Fortunately, the improper citing of the violations is so manifest as to be easily spotted and dismissed by any genuinely impartial administrator.

To address each assertion in turn:

“Fails WP:GNG”

The article is underpinned by numerous reliable, independent sources that discuss the femosphere as a phenomenon. Subsidiary to this, numerous additional sources discuss femcels – a key demographic of the femosphere. If the administrator is in any doubt, they need only Google “femosphere”. Doing so will return thousands of reliable, independent sources that demonstrate significant notability of the subject and broad recognition of the term.

“Fails WP:RS/WP:V”

This is a profoundly misleading claim. The article does not “rely” on these subreddits as sources; rather, it mentions them as points of interest in exactly the same way that the “manosphere” Wikipedia article does, as shown in this extract from the manosphere article:

“…such as /r/incels (banned in 2017), its successor /r/braincels (banned in 2018), and /r/MGTOW (banned in August 2021); other subreddits such as /r/TheRedPill”

Regarding the YouTube links, in no way do these underpin the article as “sources”; rather, I provided these links as points of interest for readers.

The references to subreddits and YouTube could be removed entirely and the integrity of the article would be unaffected.

“Violates WP:FRINGE and WP:OR”

This is incorrect and HairlessPolarBear appears to be confusing the fact that the femosphere is itself an umbrella term for multiple, disparate subgroups with the idea that it lacks a precise definition. I suggest that they Google “umbrella term”. None of the article constitutes original research – I do not understand how they arrived at this idea.

“Violates WP:NOTADVOCACY”

This is the only claim that may have some validity. It is always difficult to articulate controversial (and, in the case of the femosphere, toxic) ideas in a way that uses objective language but that also clearly communicates to the reader the danger and severity of the underlying ideologies.

I would be happy to modify this language, should anyone wish to suggest suitable alternatives.

“Possible COI”

This is claim appears to have been entirely fabricated. I have no conflict of interest and I did not write the article in collaboration with anybody else; nor am I active on Reddit in terms of posting/commenting.

Entering “femosphere” as a search term on Reddit does indeed bring up numerous posts that span several years. Whilst my search was cursory, I could not identify any co-ordinated links between the posts. Rather, the search results actually contradict HairlessPolarBear’s claims; that is, the femosphere is clearly a very well-documented and broadly discussed term.

One could be forgiven for thinking that it is, in fact, HairlessPolarBear who has the conflict of interest in this case.

“Misrepresents sources”

I’m not suggesting that HairlessPolarBear didn’t bother reading the article before recommending it for deletion, but if they had read it then they would have noticed the first bullet point on the list describing femosphere radicalisation narratives:

“A rejection of liberal feminism, asserting that it has failed to deliver a world consistent with feminists’ aspirations.”

This rejection of liberal feminism is the “reactionary, bio-essentialist, and anti-liberationist” critique that HairlessPolarBear asserts has been “removed”. I would be happy to expand on this point in the article, for clarity, but not doing so would not invalidate the article itself.

As a broader point, HairlessPolarBear appears to be suggesting that I have attempted to frame the femosphere in a positive light. How they drew this conclusion is beyond me! They will note that I explicitly described femosphere discourse as “toxic”. I could not have been more clear on this point.

In conclusion regarding HairlessPolarBear’s AfD assertions, I note that not only are all of their assertions (apart from, perhaps, the type of language used in two of the sentences) wrong, but all of them are opinion-based only and they do not in any way reflect an objective or evidence-based argument. I shall repeat here my above thought about which of us really has the conflict of interest.

In conclusion regarding the article, the article covers a subject of significant notability and is supported by numerous reliable, independent sources. Moreover, the femosphere is currently a subject of intensive debate and study in academia, the media, and among the public. Considering this, and all of the above, the femosphere deserves its own Wikipedia article and I am confident that the article I have written is in full accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines.

I therefore vote to KEEP the article, and I implore any administrator reviewing this to do the same in the name of intellectual and moral integrity. Daft Elephant (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the above formatting. I'm not sure why the spaces between paragraphs were removed and I can't see a way to edit it. Daft Elephant (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎ and WP:SNOW per both the block evasion and no chance of deletion with this nom. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Brian Thompson

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

aside from the massive media coverage, I challenge the community to say what makes Brian Thompson notable on Wikipedia. —-Anonymous 22:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:b835:a210:f4ff:9ba1:8b23:519e (talk) 22:43, April 23, 2025 (UTC)

Keep The "massive media coverage" makes him notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the article is about the killing (the event), not Brian Thompson. Seems like the nominator has been blocked for block evasion. HJ Mitchell, can this AfD be closed? Some1 (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep UnitedHealthcare is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, the 8th ranked company on the Fortune 500. The very, very high profile murder and manhunt make this notable. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC) AnonymousScholar49[reply]
Strong Keep, WP:SIGCOV is clearly met here. 162 etc. (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

1 Republican vs. 25 Kamala Harris Voters

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

Fails WP:NEVENT as a viral phenomenon with no WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Most of the coverage is just sensationalist reactions in biased sources immediately after the video was released, and the only one of these sources that is generally reliable is PinkNews (Edit: The Mary Sue is also reliable). There are some passing mentions in "serious" pieces in Variety and The Atlantic, but not significant coverage. Can be redirected to Surrounded (web series)#Episodes. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Sexuality and gender, Internet, and United States of America. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article considering it to have lasting notability because while it's true that most of the sources were immediately after (though I will note The Mary Sue is also listed as generally reliable on WP:Perennial sources, and the conversations I've found and several I didn't link have agreed that Boing Boing is generally reliable), it's the main example in both the Variety and The Atlantic articles as a reference point to how the show achieved that popularity. The headline of the Variety article even is describing the episode featuring Shapiro as unusual and is, a month after release, talking about his appearance on the show and how popular it was, and the contents of the article feature it as its prime example to say "this show is popular." Similarly, the The Atlantic article mentions it as ranking among the most popular election-related videos on YouTube, several months after release. It's seemingly the go-to example of "Surrounded is popular," which to me confers notoriety and passes SUSTAINED. As for NEVENT, the article isn't covered as an event, but rather as WP:NTVEP, which I'd say it definitely passes. It has a good amount of RSs cited, a good amount of it is "Analysis" and "Reception" which is fine per NTVEP and the reason for the biased (although not unreliable) sources. -Jessica3801 (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I missed that The Mary Sue is considered reliable. WP:BOINGBOING has unclear reliability that depends on the author. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This event is not deserving of an article, per nom plus the fact that if we keep this as an article, to be consistent we'd have to make a Wikipedia page for every semi-viral video, which is a ridiculous premise. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC) AnonymousScholar49[reply]

Roberto Cruz Alano

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

Roberto Cruz Alano is a Barangay Captain in Manila. This means that he is in charge of the Barangay, the lowest level of administrative politics in the Philippines. There are 42,011 Barangays in the Philippines. This person does NOT pass WP:NPOL. He has not been part of any major events, wars, scandals, elections, viral moments, or anything beyond the run of the mill city initiatives. Parts of this article subtly feel like violations of WP:NOTPROMO, particularly the section about his "social media to connect with constituents" and all of the info about local initiatives. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles T. Hurley

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

BLP about a university registrar. It appears to fail notability criteria for WP:NACADEMIC: registrar is a common position and not listed as a leadership role. Also fails WP:NBIO for sigcov: sources are only in-house publications; any secondary sources found are only mentions that cover the University, not the individual. Awards appear to be minor, local and given to the University office. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither PROF nor GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Robbin Laird

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

This article has had an unresolved sourcing tag for eight years. Now it's time for it to go.

This BLP has two non-RS sources. A standard WP:BEFORE finds prodigious instances of the name in Google News but, on close examination, these are each instances of bylined articles by the subject which are, therefore, not WP:INDEPENDENT. No other sources offer WP:SIGCOV. The so-called "awards" listed in the article are unsourced (and aren't even awards!), therefore, don't meet WP:AWARD. While he seems to have written a score of technical books that *might* have been reviewed, they don't meet the high standards required under WP:NAUTHOR. Chetsford (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rail transport periodical

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

Unsourced article which admits it is a "tabulation for periodicals which do not have their own articles" - a blatant end-run round WP:GNG and a useless inclusion criteria. It is full of personal opinions and original research. While at least some of these periodicals do exist, there is no way for a reader to tell if they all do. Opolito (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge into List of rail transport–related periodicals. Expanding the latter into (well-cited) tables with ISSN, publisher, and start/end dates would be valuable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decentralist Party of the South

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

No refs on the page for many years. Maybe there are offline or other sources in other languages but I'm not seeing them. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Peru. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. Note for example "Después de su derrocamiento, regresa al Perú y participa en la revolución de 1931 en Arequipa. Impulsa la creación del Partido Descentralista del Sur. Preside la Junta Provisional de Gobierno constituida para convocar inmediatamente elecciones. Cede la presidencia a don David Samanez Ocampo, que luego encabezaría en Lima la Junta Nacional de Gobierno." ([5]) - So the PDS leader became the interim president of the country. Multiple sources affirm that PDS was represented in the Constituent Assembly, and that it brought David Samanez Ocampo to power. --Soman (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok good. Add three good sources to the page and I'll withdraw the afd. JMWt (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how AfD works. Notability is not judged by the presence of sources in the article, nor is AfD supposed to be a forum for clean-up. I refer to WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. --Soman (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry no, this has been unsourced since 2009, there has been plenty of time to add sources. You here claim that there are plenty of sources that meet the GNG, so if it is that easy then add them. If not, your claims are not verified per Wikipedia:Verifiability JMWt (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt the verifiability policy applies to articles exclusively. It does not apply to discussions. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Curbon7 (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman I agree. It might help if you listed a few sources here at the AFD to show they exist -- not everyone speaks enough Spanish to search very effectively to check. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman: Can you provide at least 3 reliable sources that have given significant coverage? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Decentralist Party. Alberto Vegara's chapter "The Fujimori Regime through Tocqueville’s Lens: Centralism, Regime Change, and Peripheral Elites in Contemporary Peru" in Peru in Theory (ed. Paulo Drinot, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014 ISBN 9781137455260 doi:10.1057/9781137455260_2) on page 23 indicates the PDS was a merger of the Nationalist Agrarian Party and the Decentralist Party formed for the 1931 elections. Vegara notes the PDS won 33 of 145 seats in the 1931 Constituent Assembly election (there's some discrepancies with other sources on the the total number of seats won, which I assume has to do with the NAP seats being recorded as independents and the Decentralists separately). The party name could also be translated as Southern Decentralist Party. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Motel

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

Motel that fails WP:SIGCOV, there are plenty of old motels in Las Vegas, as well as homeless shelters, a lot of which do not get their own articles. The motel is mostly too local to merit SIGCOV, which the only notable event to happen was the conversion to a homeless shelter. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Chaturvedi

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. The two Forbes India articles are mere puff pieces ([6] [7]), while the remaining sources provide only trivial coverage and do not demonstrate notability. Yuvaank (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Delhi. Yuvaank (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Procyon117 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. Lacks Wp:SIGCOV. Zuck28 (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Forbes articles are not puff pieces, at least not entirely. This is how Forbes typically presents success stories. They were written by the editorial team and offer fairly in-depth coverage of the subject.

The subject has also been featured multiple times in Forbes' 30 Under 30 lists, both nationally and in the Asia edition.

The article on Outlook Business, Career Confidant, offers significant coverage.

Two independent and significant sources are often sufficient to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC.

Additionally, the subject is a fellow at St George's House (Windsor Castle) and was selected for the Champions of Change award, a prestigious recognition in areas like Education, Healthcare, and Science. Altogether, the subject meets both WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Monhiroe (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This individual has been covered by independent and reliable media with sufficient depth to meet WP:NBASIC in Forbes and Outlook Business. This Entrepreneur article[8] can also be used to support the content. While some company-focused sources can be trimmed, more sources specifically about him could be added from google to improve balance.Chekidalum (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IFIP Working Group 2.10

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Engineering, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSOFT Iban14mxl (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any non-template opinions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a notable subject, and a badly written article. We don't have to make a page for every random committee in every random international org with minimal to no authority.AnonymousScholar49 (talk)AnonymousScholar49

AliensFest

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

Not convinced that this student conference is notable. As far as I can see the Indian news sources references are mostly PR churn JMWt (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and India. JMWt (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article appears relatively under sourced for its size, and the conference’s yearly attendance is only on average a couple thousand people. Also appears to be hardly notable outside of local media.

IiSmxyzXX (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia

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

Bringing to AFD following discussion at what Wikipedia is Not regarding this page being a violation WP:NOTGUIDE. Proposal is to either selectively merge content from this page into the main Huntington, West Virginia page and delete this one, or remove the travel guide fluff and move this article to a new page entitled "List of parks in Huntington, West Virginia". nf utvol (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, Sports, and West Virginia. nf utvol (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you WP:MERGE content from one article into another, then we can't WP:DELETE the original, due to license requirements. So I think your proposal needs to be choosing between merge-and-redirect vs stripping it down to a list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikivoyage. It would be a pity to lose this material, but it clearly doesn't belong in WP. — hike395 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Re-direct Keep the referenced stuff, just de-fluff and merge into the main article and then redirect.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support both proposed merge' content to Huntington and delete this article as proposed or alternate proposal of reducing this article down to a bare-bones list of parks (which are tolerated for several cities). Keeping the referenced stuff won't work because a lot of that material is still classic travel guide material. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ExitMundi.nl

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

Apparently defunct website. After a prod almost twenty years ago, a bit of uncited and unsourced content was slapped on carelessly, with some evidence of COI or at least NPOV violation. I am inclined to say that notability was never established. Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- somewhat confused by this nomination: four reliable news sources are cited, even though one is a 404. That establishes clear notability by the GNG -- it is irrelevant whether the website is now defunct. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose deletion, but I actually think it would be best if this would be part of an article about Maarten Keulemans (which is now a redirect). Maarten Keulemans has become sufficiently notable since the article about ExitMundi.nl was written. Dajasj (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as FRINGE failing the GNG. Maybe Maarten Keulemans passes the GNG. He had the stories of this website bundled into a book, regardless won a prize, and did other stuff. I can't say for sure until I see it. gidonb (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, the text in sources 2 and 3 is about as long as the text of the nomination above, both brief. The other two don't open, so that's no help. The website is mentioned twice in trivial mentions in Gbooks, this for example [9]. We don't have anything extensive, I don't think these are enough to use for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the last snapshots was in 2023 from the Wayback Machine [10], I'm not even sure we'd consider it a reliable source RS for use here, not sure how that affects notability, but it would be classified as a blog today. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting AfD per request from User:Toadspike,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This review [11] is sigcov of a reading of this work by a German performer. Similar reviews here [12] and an article from the same paper (Der Bund) around the same time titled "Weltuntergangsschlagzeuger Bela B." by Gisela Feuz that I can't find online, but is in my newspaper database. This source [13] seems to have a paragraph of analysis of this subject at the end. There is a little bit in [14]. I'm not 100% certain here, but the coverage of this subject's various iterations (website, book, live performance) seem to add up to meet the GNG. If we don't keep this, I suggest redirecting to Bela B., where the subject is mentioned under "Acting and other ventures". Toadspike [Talk] 19:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toadspike. Obscure and odd but seemingly notable website. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cassidy (musician)

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

No apparent notability outside of the band Antigone Rising. The majority of the page is unsourced solo work. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, California, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There are bunch of independent sources on her with SIGCOV, but not all of them may be reliable. This, this, and this for SIGCOV. And these ones for individual claims: [15] and [16]. Only searched Google news. LastJabberwocky (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep while this article has enough sources to meet WP:BASIC, it's in desparate need of a re-write to remove promotional language and non-cited/non-verifiable content. Nnev66 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, this subject does not seem notable on her own, but maybe as part of Antigone Rising as an AtD. like so. I can't see any reliably sourced information here, but if there is it can be merged. Jdcooper (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV in this article: The Seattle Times (2005) and New Jersey Herald (2017). There are other RS's that have only a paragraph or few sentences that I believe also contribute to notability. I acknowledge it's a close call but there is reliably sourced information in the article. Nnev66 (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The Seattle Times article is about Antigone Rising again, and the NJ Herald is a fluffy interview piece about a local musician which includes the text: "Arguably, Cassidy's biggest moment of fame so far came in the early- to mid-2000s when she was doing 250 shows a year with Antigone Rising." I still don't see any sigcov, or indeed notability, outside the band. Jdcooper (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct that this person has had "no apparent notability outside of the band Antigone Rising," and there is a reliably-sourced information here. Specific concerns should be listed and the opportunity for added citations and/or editing should be allowed. Whiplashmash (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Mayfield

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

Sources for this technology entrepreneur are a mile wide and an inch deep. BD2412 T 18:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Estonia, and California. BD2412 T 18:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aghamohammad Garden House

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

Completely and utterly fails the notability requirement for places (Wikipedia:Notability (places)). Almost no info about it anywhere under the name listed on Wikipedia. Removing the word garden gets some more sites, but still no outside coverage by any notable sites. The whole article is also blatantly promotional. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Geography, and Iran. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, bad article.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)AnonymousScholar49[reply]
Delete, no referencing --Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serupepeli Naqase

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

Does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. There also aren't any citations. Specifically, WP:Notability and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Fiji. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see any indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Austin (filmmaker)

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

WP:BLP of a cinematographer, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for cinematographers. As always, cinematographers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they and their work exist -- the notability test is the reception of third-party attention being paid to their work by reliable sources, such as notability-making awards and/or analysis about their work by professional film critics. But this just states that he exists without showing any notability-building distinctions, and is referenced entirely to a glancing namecheck of his existence in one smalltown newspaper article that isn't about him in any non-trivial sense, which is not enough "coverage" to single-handedly get him over WP:GNG all by itself — and the article has been tagged for referencing problems since 2012 without ever having any new referencing added.
There are also WP:COI issues here, as the article's primary editor throughout its history has been "Jaustin5017" -- and while that isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself, it does suggest that the primary intent here was advertorial self-promotion. (As well, within the past couple of days an editor with a different username been trying to blank this down to "Jonathan Austin is an artist who exists, the end". I don't have enough information to determine whether it's the cinematographer trying to erase himself, or a different person with the same name trying to hijack the article, but either way artists don't automatically get articles just for existing either, and still have to be reliably sourced as passing inclusion criteria too.)
Regardless, nothing stated in this article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim than just existing, and better referencing than just a brief mention of his name in one smalltown newspaper article. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Maryland, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Nazi Party (disambiguation)

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

None of these groups, barring the American Nazi Party, are actually called this. This is just a list of groups that someone could incorrectly call an American Nazi Party. There are a few other groups that claim the original ANP name but we don't have articles for any of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Somajyoti ✉ 17:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, these are groups that many people could incorrectly call the American Nazi Party, what with all the swastikas. That is why it's a disambig. Also your nom partially violates WP:OTHERCONTENT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonymousScholar49 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't keep a disamb when it's purely based on people remembering stuff wrong. This name is not reflected in any sourcing, by that logic we may as well make this a list of all the hundreds and hundreds of racist parties that have at one time existed in the United States... when none of these groups are called this in any capacity. The title is not ambiguous, it can only refer to Rockwell's party. And no, it doesn't, I didn't even compare this to any other content. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of these organisations actually have this name, and the only one that ever did is the main topic anyway. Little to no need for a disambig page. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Hawksworth

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

This Canadian-American sportscaster does not have enough significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG. She worked in a lot of markets (after WJLA, she stayed in radio in Washington and then went to BetQL), but the only article that was more than cursory was from the North Shore Outlook (hometown paper). I was left wanting when I searched for sources. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, Sports, and Canada. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Arizona, and Washington, D.C.. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete like the nom I couldn't find any sources for the page that weren't primary and the sourcing already in the article isn't much better that said if someone can find a reliable source I may switch my vote Scooby453w (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV either in the article or elsewhere. I checked google and newspapers.com and didn't come up with anything significant that wasn't primary. Let'srun (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tibira do Maranhão

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

There's essentially no good sourcing for the existence of this individual, it's basically an entirely speculative story and indeed a name entirely made up based on dubious etymology. Golikom (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Sexuality and gender, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are dozens of news sources[17] and scholarly sources[18] mentioning them. Here's the BBC devoting an article to the topic, noting that an archbishops have sought to have Tibira canonized[19] and here's a magazine from Harvard noting the city put up a statue to him[20].

There are more than enough RS covering this individual and you arguing it is "an entirely speculative story" does not change that. That the name is admittedly based on dubious etymology does not change that it is in fact the WP:COMMONNAME. There is no real argument for deletion here. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MikutoH, Skyshifter, LIrala, and Schazjmd: RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Firstly, the disruptive nature of this AfD is evident, having been opened after the nominator was rightly reverted for edit warring in an attempt to prove their point of view. Secondly, the opinion that it is mere speculation is irrelevant here. There are dozens of reliable sources, and this alone is sufficient to keep the article. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Ahlquist

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

Subject does not seem to meet any of the qualifications in WP:ACADEMIC. Perhaps meets WP:BASIC but I don't think so; he has been interviewed as an expert on G.K. Chesterton, but that's not really significant coverage on Ahlquist himself.

Additionally, article was created by User:AmChestertonSoc, likely undisclosed paid editing; article overall is written like a WP:RESUME or WP:PROMOTION, and relies on primary sourcing. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Minnesota. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is going to pass WP:Author. There's also some extensive (negative) writing about him[21] Jahaza (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on that article - I'm not sure why that didn't pop up in my Google News search. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Member of Service

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article just gives a definition of a particular term in the jargon of emergency responders and a few examples of when this term might be used. I don't see opportunities for this article to become substantially more than a definition. —Bkell (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was previously proposed for deletion in 2013 with the rationale "Non-notable dictionary definition" [22]; the PROD tag was removed with the comment "expandable into more than a dicdef" [23]. —Bkell (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Kochanová

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

Unable to uncover significant coverage of this individual from multiple independent sources. Results from searches generally yield results with little to no more detail than a name, such as [24] and [25]. C 679 15:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Slovakia. C 679 15:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best I can find is this Q&A but it contains very little independent content and is from her tennis association, so not independent Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox version history

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTCHANGELOG; almost no links to secondary sources. Information about releases which actually got coverage in secondary sources should be moved to the main Firefox article.

Also it's just a burden in general to maintain such constantly updated abominations, and that's exactly because they're constantly updated. MinervaNeue (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that sort of run-along-after-the-fact cataloguing is pretty much a textbook version of what Wikipedia is not. There is no point our doing an organisation's job for it, nor is the matter of any encyclopedic interest. The existing Firefox article is quite sufficient as a home for any reliable secondary-sourced material about the tool. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do it yourself then. Icaneditalot42 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up someone else's trash isn't and shouldn't be my responsibility. MinervaNeue (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I have no opinion on this article/list, I did want to point out that it mostly only covers post-2011 versions, as everything before that was split into a Firefox early version history in 2019. That one obviously does not need as frequent updates as a list that is intended to contain more current information, but some of the other "not a change log" issues may apply, so a discussion for that article may also be warranted (not necessarily bundled into this one; in any event, I have no opinion on that one either). (The existence of the other page briefly came up in this article's second nomination—the first nomination predated its creation—but so far as I can tell it has never been nominated for deletion in any form itself.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the article I nominated, the one you mentioned doesn't need to be updated constantly, so I think it's fine. Though it written in prose and covering only major releases (and I'm sure there are secondary sources for all major releases of Firefox before 5.0) would be better than using tables and listing every single hotfix in them, because that would comply with WP:NOTCHANGELOG. MinervaNeue (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we deleted this that one would make no sense, so surely we would have to delete it too. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be rewritten to be a rules-compliat version history article in a reasonable amount of time, unlike the one we're currently discussing. Therefore I don't see any point in deleting it. MinervaNeue (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we have an "early" version history without a version history article? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trebava offensive

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

Contested prod, without improvement or explanation. Appears to be WP:SYNTH. Neither of the sources in the piece mention a Trebava offensive. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the September 11 attacks (H–N)

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

Fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL and is just a indiscriminate list of victims. E_F⁵ 15:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment EF5, any particular reason you're only nominating H-N and not the two other lists on the same subject? Departure– (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Departure–, I'm not sure how to do that. — E_F⁵ 16:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BUNDLE has instructions on exactly this. Though, I'm less than sure how it'll go now that a discussion has begun - perhaps withdraw for now and make your bundled nomination? Departure– (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, regardless of the specific 9/11 list being nominated, per last AfD discussion. Nothing much has changed. The list clearly passes NLIST. People always say NOTMEMORIAL when it doesn't apply, but that only applies when the topic itself isn't notable and people add it anyway. If the topic is notable, all NOTMEMORIAL says is:

Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements

The notability requirement for the list is satisfied, as shown extensively in the last AfD, so notmemorial becomes moot.

As for INDISCRIMINATE, that guideline says an article should not be summary only descriptions of works, lyrics databases, exhaustive logs of software updates, or unexplained statistics. The first three clearly do not apply, and I don't think the fourth one does because you could make a clear lead about a list of the 9/11 victims and what these people have in common is clearly explained. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this was made in response to the nominator's article of a similar kind getting AfD'd, and while I really do understand the frustration of what is seen as inconsistent enforcement, I do think there is a difference here in the quality of the sourcing per NLIST which is much more clearly evidenced here. The sourcing on 9/11 victims as a group is comparatively much much more significant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA, indeed it was. I saw that going under and immediately this article came to mind. Please do keep in mind WP:FOC, though. — E_F⁵ 17:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Terrorism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous AfD was closed as Keep, which I think was a mistake. The debate was pretty evenly divided; at best, it was a "No consensus," not "Keep." Angryapathy (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for now, as I think all three of the "victims" articles should be discussed together. As to concerns mentioned above, it should be noted that the previous AfD for this topic resulted in a pretty clear consensus that the topic meets WP:LISTN; while numerically there were 11 delete !votes and 16 keep !votes, it seems like the LISTN arguments were more persuasive to the closing admin per WP:NOTVOTE.
However, I'll reiterate what I said in the previous AfD. This list (and the other two) should probably be merged, and trimmed to link only to notable people. Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL (in the literal sense - the National September 11 Memorial & Museum is literally a memorial and we don't need to copy every name from the 9/11 Memorial), we shouldn't list all the non-notable people who died here. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep as a partial nomination out of context. I also lean keep on a greater nomination. Can we please AfD a little less and a concentrate more on the article space? gidonb (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Boy Gang

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

Fails WP:GNG. Poorly sourced articles whose only source are from websites that arent reliable. TzarN64 (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the 2011 Super Outbreak

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

While the outbreak is very notable, this article was initially denied at AfC based on WP:NOTMEMORIAL and was later published into the mainspace anyway. The article contains several errors (such as stating the Hackleburg tornado killed 72 people but only listing 70), and the table at the top does not add up to the correct number of people killed on the correct dates. The top table also does not seem to jive with the list of fatalities below it in regards to the date. The table also lists numerous Jane and John Doe's, implying that those people are unknown. In fact, those people are known, but likely do not have names published online in an easily found place. I believe an alternative to outright deletion could be to condense this into a section at 2011 Super Outbreak or to break the names (provided the information is correct) into separate tables in their respective tornado's section at 2011 Super Outbreak. United States Man (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOTMEMORIAL only applies to non-notable casualty lists, which isn’t the case here. Other than that, nothing said warrants deletion. Instead of immediately sending it to AfD, be bold and fix it. E_F⁵ 23:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have a computer, an in-depth reasoning:
1. The Teahouse decline is moot since I published it after another experienced user told me it was fine.
2. NOTMEMORIAL only applies to deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. Note that every person on the list has had some form of coverage, and as such does not fall under NOTMEMORIAL.
3. This is far from a WP:TNT situation needing the deletion of a large list. Slap a {{cleanup|reason=Missing people in the list}} tag instead of immediately taking it to AfD, or you can one-up that and actually fix the issue.
4. The table also lists numerous Jane and John Doe's, implying that those people are unknown and he table at the top does not add up to the correct number of people killed on the correct dates aren't policy-based and don't hold weight. — E_F⁵ 12:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a pretty cut and dry case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL as well as WP:NOTDATABASE (I read the above arguments about this not being a case of NOTMEMORIAL, but I'm unconvinced). I understand that they can all be sourced, but the vast, vast majority of this list is simply a reprint of two news articles listing the names of the deceased. I suppose you could make an argument that these could be broken out into sections on the individual tornado pages. nf utvol (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is not encyclopedic. There are many, many, many catastrophes in the world. And Wikipedia isn't the place to memorialize everyone. Angryapathy (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, while the wording of NOTMEMORIAL might not exactly match this, I think the intent does. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weitz & Luxenberg P.C.

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

I don't see independent significant coverage outside of a scandal (and even that is largely tabloid sources like New York Post). According to the talk page, this article is the product of a UPE sock farm to highlight negative aspects of law firms they have issues with Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, United States of America, and New York. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose a deletion, although a redirect to Sheldon Silver, who was of counsel to the firm, is reasonable and appropriate. The article as written is irredeemable. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable law firm that's only notable because of Sheldon Silver's involvement in the firm. The sources mention the firm, but the firm is never the subject of the article. Angryapathy (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lyza

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

Fairly unremarkable other than a few published papers on a largely niche topic (tornadoes/severe weather). By this stretch, every meteorologist (especially many professors in academia) who author papers should have Wikipedia articles, which isn't the case. United States Man (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Science. United States Man (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Hate to say it but I agree that they just don't meet the bar of notability. I think instead of making new articles on meteorologists we should, as a project, work on improving the quality of existing articles; see the dreadful state of Ted Fujita, for instance. Departure– (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also say that the USA Today source doesn't mean anything for notability in my eyes. Lyza was brought on as an expert to explain the individual study about the same topic covered at EF5 drought. This is, in my eyes, as routine as coverage gets - especially his qualifications being described by USA Today as simply lead author on the new study about the EF5 tornado drought. It would be different if the article was specifically about Lyza, or if Lyza was described as being top of his field or otherwise academically vital. Departure– (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - enough sources to justify notability.

WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Several secondary reliable sources besides academic papers reference or interview/quote Anthony Lyza and his works, including the New York Times and many other articles: [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. Clearly passes the bare minimum of WP:PROF and WP:BIO, especially since the US government even posted he is a tornado “expert”. WP:PROF says if a person passes any of the listed items, then they are notable. The first point of WP:PROF is “The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” That seems clear, given the tons of sources discussing Lyza and his work. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Alabama, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
?. The subject has a very small number of citations in GS. What is the reason for this? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Small? This indicates he has 13 publications from 2017-2024, +1 not listed published in January 2025. So, he has at least 14 different publications that would be on GS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The USA Today reference is the make-or-break for me here, as it does indeed show him being mentioned in major news outlets. — E_F⁵ 12:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GS gives 167 cites. Normally 1000+ cites is required for notability under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Oh! That is what you meant by not many GS citations. Most meteorologists use respective country-based academic publication societies, rather than GS to find sources. For example, in US is the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Just by looking at the AMS-website metrics alone for the 2025 paper that Mr. Lyza was lead author on ([34]) show 7281 full text views. AMS does not keep track directly of who cited the paper, only records of downloads and views. That paper has over 7,000 views just since January 2025 (it was released January 23, 2025). Hopefully that helps. AMS contains probably 80% of the meteorologically published papers that are often cited in textbooks or by other meteorologists. This is one of those fields of science where GS is actually not the most used/useful measurement tool. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after reading the above discussion. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are evenly divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears notable enough so it's not improper to include him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sewanee Tigers starting quarterbacks

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

This grouping does not have the necessary coverage to meet WP:LISTN due to a lack of coverage in reliable sources. PROD was removed by article creator with the reasoning that other schools have similar pages but that is effectively WP:OSE. Let'srun (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, American football, Lists, and Tennessee. Let'srun (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selective merge to Sewanee Tigers football It's a Division III team, while every other college team with a quarterback list is a major D1 team. We really should not have separate pages for every conceivable list of non-notable players (and it appears several of those with articles here like Walter Barrett should also be deleted as non-notable players who did not play professionally and lack significant coverage). Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sewanee today is D3, but was a major D1 school from the 1890s until the 1930s. The Sewanee-Vanderbilt rivalry was the oldest in the South, and Sewanee also had a rivalry with Auburn, and were part of the original Southeastern Conference. Perhaps the best analogy is Tulane. If the list only was for post-WW2 or something, I would agree on its removal, but this is an all-time list. Sewanee has 3 (D1) Hall of Famers: Henry D. Phillips, Diddy Seibels, and Frank Juhan. Ormond Simkins should have been a fourth. Barrett was All-Southern, i. e. according to some (Heisman and Donahue) the best QB in the South, for a Sewanee team that suffered a single loss, in its rivalry game thanks to the greatest play Grantland Rice saw in his life. Easily a handful of notable QBs, which seems to justify a navbox. Cake (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I get that Sewanee was a D1 school until the 1930s, but the content of this list has a whole raft of problems with WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:NCOLLATH. nf utvol (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Academy Blackheath

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article on a school, and added another piece of local news coverage about its establishment. I can find very little non-primary coverage, however, and don't think it meets WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. It was established in 2018, so it may be WP:TOOSOON for it to have demonstrated notability.

Redirect to its multi-academy trust, Leigh Academies Trust, is a possibility, but I didn't want to go ahead and do this without consulting the community, partly because the Leigh Academy Blackheath article is well-developed for what sources there are, and partly because I'm not entirely convinced that the trust itself is notable (mostly primary sources or local coverage in that article too) - so didn't want to redirect from one article with weak notability to another. Tacyarg (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leigh Academies Trust. I agree with the nom. that I am not seeing what makes this a notable school. There is a reasonable amount of information on the page, although this is largely just put together from primary sources regarding or reporting its construction. That information could be pared back a bit, but actually would be useful in this article were the school shown to be notable for some other reason. It is a new school, and there is good reason to believe the situation will change at some point, so I would be unhappy with a result that saw the page history hidden by deletion, but the redirect will preserve what is here until such a time as notability is established. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, as with all secondary schools in the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources meet GNG? (that is, they are independent, reliable and secondary, with significant coverage)? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarismcheck.org

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

This is a bit better than the version in draft that I speedied (and I suspect there's admins who'd push the button if I slapped a {{db-g11}} on it again) but I can't find any evidence it meets our inclusion guidelines. First ref has no mention of the subject at all; second is a two-sentence passing mention that says the author doesn't know a thing about it; fourth isn't on the web but predates the site by six years; fifth also isn't on the web but is a doctoral dissertation. The third, from Strategy First International College (which doesn't seem to have an English web presence to speak of outside of YouTube), is the closest to usable, but it's still shallow. I can't find anything better - a lot of blog posts and trivial feature comparisons and a strong impression of a recent astroturfing campaign, which this article is probably part of. —Cryptic 19:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found the following two academic articles, both published in peer-reviewed education journals, which analyze the efficacy of the plagiarism checker relatively in detail: 1 2. Agree with nominator that many of the news sources are blog post-esque, "list of best plagiarism checker" type articles which are not allowed per WP:NCORP but I think these two articles together are sufficient. The article does need work though, as it currently comes across quite promotional, so I could also be sympathetic to draftifying it until someone can rework it. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 20:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning draftify. I don't think the article in its current form is acceptable, but the two academic articles found by @Flipandflopped just above may be enough to write a more concise article on Plagiarismcheck.org. However, it needs a fundamental rewrite and a closer look at the two academic articles to make sure that they review the product in a way that can be integrated into an article. Pichpich (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify I declined this article in the AfC queue a week ago before it was g11'd. Little improvement have been made in terms of sourcing and promotional tone. The creator of this article (@Robbydillallo) moved the draft into mainspace without review and had not responded to COI inquiries on their talk page, raising questions about WP:UPE. The one of the academic articles FlipandFlopped cied test 14 different tools, and give little information about this tool in detail. The other is more subtantial, but still only gives minimal coverage.

Ironically, for an academic honesty tool, this article seems to be written with a help of an AI. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! These are great advice, well I have tried to make it better. The studies i have mentioned are quite about the subject. I am also sad that you mention that I used AI. This is not honest. That is why such tools as Plagiarismcheck and Integrito are important. I will rewrite according to your comments, please, don't delete it. I will submit for review too. I was confised about moving it to mainspace Robbydillallo (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone else see draftify as the preferred outcome here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KUBE (Oregon)

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

Does not meet GNG and entirely relies on a single primary source. Another article of the same defunct radio station exist WMIC (1590 AM), WOSL (Florida). I think they should be deleted or merged as a list of defunct radio stations in America. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A better merge source might be the media section of Pendleton, Oregon and/or the "Defunct" section of List of radio stations in Oregon. A list of defunct stations is likely a random collection of information. Note that having a single source is not in itself a deletion criterion. I've added a bit but am not claiming the article now passes WP:GNG. This isn't an official guideline but WP:NMEDIA might be instructive. Note to all at AfD: Could we pretty please link to the guidelines we are referencing, such as "GNG", in the nomination? Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to state list The main problem is that PoppysButterflies is putting pages into mainspace too early across the board. Unfortunately, while Newspapers.com just added the Pendleton paper, it is right now missing from 1947 to 1964. These should be list redirects until more sourcing can be built, but the half-baked two-sentence stub will not cut it. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's 5 sentences, haha. Anyway, it looks like oregonnews.uoregon.edu (free!) is also missing those years of the East Oregonian but it might have other papers that newspapers.com doesn't have. Again, lacking sources is not a deletion criterion. And WP:BEFORE is a good guideline, especially section D. I'm not going to go to a whole lot more effort to flesh this article out but I will note that one of the problems with media sources are they often aren't covered in other media sources. Valfontis (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaye Tuckerman

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

Non-notable. AI generated and at least some refs are fake. Polygnotus (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and can we just find some way to speedy these. Btw Polygnotus thanks for the heads up re. ANI, although the guy was blocked by the time I got there :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Fails WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR as there is only one notable role with some reviews. Redirect to Mamma Mia! (musical)#productions. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of coverage in digitised newspapers about her from her time in Mamma Mia from 2010-2012, certainly enough to meet WP:GNG. She probably also meets WP:NACTOR / WP:CREATIVE with her other performances and her nomination for the Africa Movie Academy Awards for design work on From a Whisper. I'll add sources to the article (and check out the existing ones). No, please let's not Speedy Delete articles like this - there is clear indication of notability in the text of this article; the refs could be improved, but that's the case with lots of WP articles, and is not a reason to delete. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen Are you basing your !vote on the fake information in the article? I looked at your contributions and the last 7 edits are keep votes for AfDs? It looks like you believe that the article is fine but the refs need to be improved, but in reality the refs are fake and fail verification. She clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. You could quibble about WP:NACTOR, but only because those standards are so much lower which is unfair and should be fixed. In any case, per WP:CONLEVEL such an WP:SNG cannot overrule WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm basing my Keep !vote on what I can see in digitised newspapers (which are also available to WP editors through the Wikipedia Library). If you have looked at my contributions, you will have seen that I put a kot of time and effort into improving articles at AfD, and as I said, I will add sources to this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended WP:OFFTOPIC back and forth

@RebeccaGreen Hm, OK, it was just a bit weird to see 7 keep !votes in a row. I think I am more deletionist than you are. With BLPs I am always extra careful because a bad BLP can be far more harmful than a bad article about a Pokemon. I checked the Wikipedia Library (9 results for their name between doublequotes) and I don't see any sources that can be used (a name in a list is not WP:INDEPTH). Do you have access to the source I mentioned on the talkpage? Polygnotus (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7 Keep !votes at 20-40 minute intervals - during which I searched for sources. I don't just !vote without checking, and if I don't find much or anything in theway of sources,I !vote delete, redirect or merge. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen You are at 71.2% keep and I am at 87.0% delete Probably because we use AfD for different purposes; I use it to get rid of the trash while you perhaps use it to find things worth saving. Both are valid. Polygnotus (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus:, I don't think attempting to discredit someone's vote based on anything OTHER than the merit of their contention is appropriate. Their keep/delete ration or how fast they voted does not discount their !vote.--CNMall41 (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Agreed, and I didn't. As I said, I just happened to notice it and it was remarkable enough to remark upon. In the future, please be more careful before writing something like that, because implying that someone did something they clearly did not is not appropriate, especially in the context of potential false allegations of bad intentions without evidence. Polygnotus (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am very careful and I wrote exactly what I meant. While veiled, you asking if they based their vote on fake information was insinuating they lacked competence. You then proceeded to discuss their voting history instead of their contention. I do not agree with the !keep vote, but they are allowed to have it. You are free to address their contention, but saying things like "it's just weird" then sharing someone's AfD stats is about conduct, not content. If you have issue with my comment, please address at WP:ANI. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to run to ANI every time someone makes a mistake. ANI is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. You just made a mistake. I can just point it out and move on. Polygnotus (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mistake was made. I stand behind what I said 100%. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is allowed. I can explain something but I cannot understand it for you. Polygnotus (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalypso Nicolaïdis

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

She ought to be notable but a BEFORE search is only returning material BY her, not ABOUT her. Tagged for a lack of sources for 8 years already. Cabayi (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, France, and Greece. Cabayi (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's well-known in my discipline of International Relations, and her works have over 10,000 citations on Scholar. I would say it's not uncommon that academics have plenty of output and notability in their field without much coverage about them as a person. Completely agree that the article needs more sourcing, of course - but that feels like a better avenue than deletion.

— Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 22:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think her citation record is good enough for WP:PROF#C1, but I also found quite a few published reviews, of one coauthored book (The Greco-German Affair in the Euro Crisis, [35]) and several co-edited volumes (The Greek Paradox, [36], [37]; European Stories, [38], [39], [40]; The Federal Vision, [41], [42]; Echoes of Empire, [43], [44]; Strategic Trends in Services, [45]; In the Long Shadow of Europe, [46]). Because they are mostly not authored books I think this only makes a weak case for WP:AUTHOR but there are enough of them to make the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article violate copy right rules. https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Kalypso+Nicola%C3%AFdis&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Diban clashes

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant clashes article, which doesn't have content that can be expanded. Can be merged to Rojava–Islamist conflict. Ecrusized (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support since this article looks to just be about a rather small skirmish between some tribal gunmen and the SDF, but I think its info should be merged into the Eastern Syria Insurgency article instead; the article on them doesn't mention them as being explicitly Islamist, and they're already in the article's infobox. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me it should be linked with Deir ez-Zor clashes (2023) because they were not only in 2023 but also in 2024 because Eastern Syria Insurgency is only for rebels, ISIS and Baathist remnants against the Syrian democratic forces. 2800:200:F4D0:97B:EC4D:94C4:86A5:E42B (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the 2023 Deir ez-Zor clashes looks like it's about a specific wave of clashes against the SDF in August and September 2023, so idk if the Diban Clashes' info should be moved there. However, you are right in that the Eastern Syria Insurgency article doesn't focus on the tribal militia. Maybe there could be a new article created specifically about tribal militias attacking the SDF (e.g. Tribal Insurgency in Eastern Syria), and the Diban Clashes' info could be merged there? Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better, because there are many waves of attacks from the Tribal forces and an article where they are all combined is good. Farcazo (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create a Draft (Draft:Arab Tribal insurgency in Eastern Syria) if you want you can help move things from here to there and add Farcazo (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Farcazo's idea of making an article for Arab tribes attacking the SDF in eastern Syria would be a suitable decision, and the info from this article could just be moved there. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025 Daraa clashes

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

Insignificant clashes article which gives little to no information to the readers. WP:NOTNEWS. Can be merged to Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present). Ecrusized (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support since the article's small (the timeline only has 3 small sentences), but idk if it should merged into the Western Syria Clashes article because that's specifically about Latakia/Tartus and western Homs/Hama (though it could just be renamed to something like Assadist insurgency).

I was gonna propose making a Mohsen al-Haymed article, but he's only been reported on in 3 separate months - April 2024, January 2025, and March 2025, which might not be enough coverage for a separate article.

(If this article isn't deleted, it should be renamed to something like 2025 al-Sanamayn Clashes or al-Sanamayn Clashes (2024-2025)) Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the info to Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present) wouldn't make sense, as Daraa is in southern Syria. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Low level of Oppostition It should remain in place until the Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present) page issue is resolved Because only the title applies to the Western Syria Farcazo (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The scope of this article fits better within Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present), yet obviously these clashes did not take place in western Syria. Building off of this, there's significant discussion on the name of the article, and at the current moment it seems that the general consensus leans towards changing the title to a more inclusive name, but disagreement exists on what to change the name too. It might be a good idea to extend this AFD discussion until ongoing discussion on the other article is resolved. Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish place names in other countries

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

All but one entry is uncited. This fails WP:NLIST; we really need to crack down on these old, uncited naming-related lists. E_F⁵ 13:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, list is based on an arbitrary, non-defining and trivial characteristic. Speaking to the OP's concern about a lack of citations, place name origins are often historically disputed, obscure, based on misunderstandings or poor Anglicization (e.g., Canadian, Texas), or even arbitrary (e.g., numerous American communities renamed by the U.S. Postal Service to avoid duplication). And what if the community is named after a person, geographical feature, or other community with a name similar to an Irish place? All of these factors may cast doubt on whether some entries are legitimately "Irish". Carguychris (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPAGE and WP:NLIST. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There do appear to be sources for Irish place names in various countries, for example Irish Place Names in Australia [47] and "Australia's Irish Place Names" in The Australasian Journal of Irish Studies [; Dictionary of Southern African Place Names [48] which identifies those that are named after places in Ireland; The Master Book of Irish Placenames has an appendix of Irish place names in America [49]; Irish Place-names in America was published in 1963 [50]; "Gaelic Surnominal Place-Names in Ireland and Their Reflection in Argentina" in Studi irlandesi : a Journal of Irish Studies (2021); The Origin and Meaning of Place Names in Canada [51] notes places in Canada named for places in Ireland - etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the list of interesting and Rebecca has decent sources that could be added, but it needs major clean-up if kept. It's pretty crappy right now: most of the place articles don't actually verify that they're named after the Irish places; Longford, Victoria, Shannon, Alabama and Moorefield, Ohio are just a few found in a quick scan that are not and should be removed.
Reywas92^Talk 14:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Reywas92, then add WP:TNT to my nom statement. This is too decrepit to be saved. — E_F⁵ 14:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enoteca Boccaccio

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

WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. A few WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS in Melbourne papers are not enough to demonstrate notability especially given the WP:PROMO tone of a lot of this article. The Herald Sun is dubious as a reliable source, nor is notabily inherited because the restaurant is owned by a prominent local family. Dfadden (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Australia. Dfadden (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, it needs more than restaurant reviews in Melbourne papers, otherwise we'd be creating articles for every restaurant reviewed. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom and Libstar appear to be referring to WP:AUD requirement. That requirement gives an example of how small a newspaper would be serving for it to be too small: e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town. Melbourne has a population of over 5 million. The AUD guideline requires at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. It gives an example of regional as "(e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state)". The Herald Sun is the biggest newspaper in Australia, and the Herald Sun's reliability concern is about their factual reporting, not about opinions presented about restaurants. The concern wrt opinions there would be that this was undisclosed paid promotion; there is no evidence that is the case here, indeed it is extremely unlikely.

If you exclude the Herald Sun, there is still The Age which easily meets the AUD requirement. There is plenty of other significant coverage which add up to pass WP:NCORP.[52][53][54][55] The article also doesn't read as having a particularly PROMO tone (It has been described as reminiscent of Italy's streets and piazzas. can be better attributed). It seems like editors think anything that can reflect positively on a business is PROMO. I see BLPs all the time that are far more positive: look at any celebrity FA (e.g. Katy Perry, Oscar Isaac so on.) Sorry this is so long, I really do not understand how the nom perceiving the article to have a PROMO tone would make restaurant reviews in what they describe as "Melbourne papers" not contribute to notability: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the person who wrote WP:AUD ~17 years ago, Rollinginhisgrave has the correct interpretation. Anyone who wants to learn more about AUD may find Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)/Audience requirement or the longer version at User:WhatamIdoing/Audience requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Rollinginhisgrave. I see no major issues with tone. The Herald Sun is a reliable source, especially when they are reporting outside of the political realm. Satisfies NCORP. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rollinginhisgrave, WhatamIdoing even if the sources are valid per WP:AUD, they dont really demonstrate anything other than this place exists and has generally favourable reviews. That sounds pretty WP:MILL. MILL may not be formalised policy, but it is good advice on sensible interpretation of WP:GNG and explicitly says: Some articles not to create based on common sources only are:

*A restaurant that has been given reviews in the local papers

Yes, you can argue that these papers have national circulation, but these WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS are clearly written for a local audience. If this is the standard we accept than any restaurant in a capital city that is reviewed by that city's major newspaper is inherently notable... Giving private businesses wikipedia articles based solely on reviews starts to sound a lot like a WP:TRAVELGUIDE and free publicity does it not?Dfadden (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfadden, I used small-town vs big-city restaurant reviews as an example at User:WhatamIdoing/Audience requirement#Examples, and I think you should read it.

I am confused by your claim that https://www.theage.com.au/goodfood/melbourne-eating-out/first-look-at-the-stately-enoteca-boccaccio-above-balwyn-s-boccaccio-cellars-20230614-p5dgki.html (the source I clicked on) is "clearly written for a local audience". I expected to see something like "a nice little place to visit if you're already in the neighborhood" (a polite way for reviewers to say "not the worst, but not worth a trip"). Instead, the opening sentence says "The D’Anna family has been luring Italians...to Balwyn for 60 years". Traveling from Italy to Balwyn requires 20 hours in an airplane. That's not local. Maybe you made some assumptions?

Poking around briefly, I find that the restaurant has won the 2023 "Best Hospitality Interior" from Belle (an Australian architectural/design magazine). That's another national source indicating notability. I'll go add it to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The D’Anna family has been luring Italians... it requires a bit of WP:SYNTHESIS to suggest this is saying people are travelling 20 hours from Italy just to come to this restaurant. Especially given the large Italian diaspora that exists in Melbourne and without anything to support this claim. If someone can cite a review in an Italian paper, sure! Or if there was a report saying a notable Italian person had travelled to Australia just to visit this place, or even stopped in while in town, then that would be evidence to support this claim. In the absence of this, it might as well be editorial hyperbole. And I have re-read your link to AUD examples. It is making a reasonable assumption that because a place has a large population, major newspapers in those markets will only cover businesses which stand out. However, that alone does not make a restaurant notable as it still needs to satisfy the top level criteria at WP:NORG. That requires editors to consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. So apart from the suggestion that people have travelled from Italy and an award for interior design, can you direct me to an article that provides discussion of the cultural, societal, economic or historical impact of this restaurant? An example of this standard being met is Lentil as Anything which was the subject of a book and a television documentary and catered for an International Conference. Also see Colonial Tramcar Restaurant - when it closed, The Age described the event as "A sad day for society", evidenced by support and sadness expressed in the broader community. Dfadden (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it doesn't require any SYNTH at all. SYNTH requires a minimum of two sources, and we are discussing only the interpretation of a single source. You might credibly say that I'm making a big assumption that the "Italians" who are so lured are being lured from their home country and not just from a hotel down the street. I would have to agree with you: it could be editorial hyperbole. But the ambiguity prevents me from agreeing that this review is "clearly written for a local audience", as you claimed above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Age's Good food guide is a national magazine. A chefs hat rating is akin to a Michelin star in Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly carries some weight and I am not denying this is a very well regarded restaurant. But again, does the hat provide social, cultural, historic or economic significance? I dont believe it does; this is not the only hatted italian restaurant in Melbourne - in fact, its not even in the AGFG top 5 rated italian restaurants in Melbourne[56]: Bottarga in Brighton, Al Dente Enoteca in Carlton are both double hatted and have no articles. Grossi Florentino (double hatted) has an article, which establishes cultural, social and historical significance by virtue of its Murals being classified by the National Trust and WP:LASTING coverage over 95 years. There are 4 other Italian restaurants in Melbourne that received a score of 13 chef hats, above Enoteca Boccaccio's score of 12 and none of them have articles either. So what is so significant about this place that it deserves its own article? Dfadden (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph of WP:ORGSIG that you partially quote above is about not disfavoring small businesses just because they're small, or over-favoring large businesses because they're big. We have, for example, had people suggest in the past that all publicly traded companies should be automatically notable, or that all companies employing more than n people should be notable; ORGSIG opposes this kind of bias. Editors who are thinking "Who cares, it's just a little restaurant" need to think about whether there might be something else going on – something that might even make them more successful when they search for sources. ORGSIG is not a requirement that organizations must have some cultural significance that is legible to Wikipedia editors; it is not saying that WP:ITSIMPORTANT is a good reason to keep an article. It's trying to get editors away from a knee-jerk "just a little restaurant so it's obviously non-notable" mindset towards "Let's see whether there might be something else going on here."

The rest of this comment is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bottarga and Al Dente Enoteca are probably notable, even though nobody's written the articles yet. We have many Category:Lists of Michelin-starred restaurants; maybe there should be a list of these restaurants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for engaging in the discussion with well-thought out replies. I'm not at all suggesting that small businesses are less notable than large ones. In fact, I think the example I gave of Grossi Florentino supports that small businesses can indeed be notable. I guess in this case, I have considered your proposition Let's see whether there might be something else going on here and I'm entirely unconvinced that there is anything beyond Enoteca Boccaccio being a restaurant that makes good food and has nice decor. It does sound like a great little restaurant and I'm convinced I would like to eat there. But it's more the the kind of thing I'd expect to read about in a travel or food guide, certainly not an encyclopedia. There does have to be, as you put it, something else going on here that makes it notable otherwise any restaurant with nice decor and a review in a major newspaper becomes apparently encyclopedic content. I don't think that is a good thing for wikipedia. Anyway, I have said far too much on this now, so I will pipe down now and let consensus determine the outcome. Peace. Dfadden (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the intended meaning of ORGSIG, it should be amended to be clearer. I don't Dfadden was unreasonable in making this reading. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 00:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP per the sources in the article. WP:MILL is neither a policy nor a guideline. There's no basis in notability policy that something must be unusual to be notable. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given debate over the applicability of the guidelines and essays raised in this discussion (WP:AUD, WP:MILL, WP:SYNTH), I think this would benefit from some more discussion and perspectives.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WMBC (Mississippi)

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

Does not meet GNG and entirely relies on a single primary source. Another article of the same defunct radio station exist WMIC (1590 AM), WOSL (Florida). I think they should be deleted or merged as a list of old radio stations in America. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Macan Band

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability of the band is disputed as not enough significant coverage provided (yet). Norlk (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Skynxnex (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WOSL (Florida)

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

Does not meet GNG and entirely relies on a single primary source. Another article of the same defunct radio station exist WMIC (1590 AM). I think they should be deleted or merged as a list of old radio stations in America. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Taylor

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:BIO and more specifically, I don't think any of the criteria in WP:AUTHOR are made out. Article as it is currently written has WP:NPOV issues, seems like WP:PROMO, and has had an orange WP:GNG tag at the top for nearly ten years, so I'm inclined to delete on TNT grounds even if my brief search for other notability failed me. Flip^and Flopped ツ 01:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning weak keep as there are at least three reviews of her book "Faith and Power"; she co-authored it so not sure how that counts towards notability here but there's an argument for WP:NAUTHOR. The last six references in this article are non-primary references and book reviews. Nnev66 (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources supporting the article are marginal at best. It reads like a puff piece using marginal sources. A real WP article about the subject would be 2-3 paragraphs at best. Angryapathy (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krishi Kumbh 2018

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

This regional agriculture conference fails WP:NEVENT for lack of continued coverage (it seems to have had a burst of coverage around the event) and fails WP:GNG for lack of reliable secondary source coverage (the only sources in the article and in a WP:BEFORE search are unbylined, press-release-driven churnalism articles in WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources). Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Events, Technology, and Uttar Pradesh. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all applicable content can live on Narendra Modi entry if of enough note. --Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Meditation Day

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

I am not seeing any reliable-source secondary coverage of this UN General Assembly-declared awareness day for a pass of WP:GNG. Like the sources in the article, the sources in the WP:BEFORE search are all unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA churnalism. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Spirituality. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zexzy

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

Subject does not meet GNG or NMUSIC. Princess of Ara 13:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 13:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are several articles that establish notability such as 1, 2. I also added 3 new ones 3, 4, 5.Darkm777 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WMIC (1590 AM)

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

Does not meet GNG as there are no significant coverage from reliable sources to add more information about the defunct radio station Uncle Bash007 (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Michigan. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability for a long defunct radio station 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 20:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Takahiro Sasaki (footballer)

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

Retired in 1998 after 13 professional appearances. Creator is indefinitely blocked. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings

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

The article Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (WP:NOTE) for a standalone page and violates WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:COATRACK. It aggregates loosely related interpretations—feminist analyses (e.g., Shelob as vagina dentata), queer readings of Frodo/Sam, and non-sexual themes like friendship or heroic bonds—under a broad “sexuality” framework, creating a misleading synthesis that overemphasizes speculative perspectives not central to Tolkien’s work. Many cited sources (e.g., Partridge, Jaques) are niche within Tolkien scholarship, and reliance on primary texts (e.g., Tolkien’s letters) risks WP:NOR by inferring sexual themes not explicitly supported. Other content, particularly on gender dynamics, overlaps with Women in The Lord of the Rings.

While the article holds Good Article status (GA review, Sept. 2021), this reflects one reviewer’s assessment and does not override community consensus on notability or due weight. Sexuality is not a primary or widely recognized theme in The Lord of the Rings, unlike themes like heroism or good vs. evil, and the article’s 39k-byte scope gives WP:UNDUE weight to minority views, potentially inflating their prominence (WP:LIPSTICK).

I propose merging notable content to existing articles: vagina dentata symbolism to Shelob#Sexual monster, and queer perspectives to Themes of The Lord of the Rings#Debated themes, following precedents like Themes in A Song of Ice and Fire. Since Women in The Lord of the Rings already covers related gender themes, these merges would place content in more relevant contexts, eliminating the need for a standalone article. If merging is not viable, deletion is warranted per Wikipedia’s content policies. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: This nomination is based on prior discussions at Talk:Themes of The Lord of the Rings#Sexuality,_etc. (April 11–17, 2025) and Talk:Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings (April 6–9, 2025). 87.116.181.138 (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "contested themes" pages lack the depth of this article which seems a reasonable survey of the literature on this topic. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: I have undone a disruptive non-admin closure of this AfD, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 24. @Dracophyllum: feel free to contribute now if you would like to. Sandstein 08:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging other editors from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings to notify them of the reopening: Chiswick Chap, Vpab15, StarTrekker. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
adding @Remsense: to that. Lectonar (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, although Remsense has already been notified on their talk page. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's always surprising to see the quantity of LOTR articles, but it comes as a result of the impact that LOTR had on literature and the resulting hundreds of books and articles. The page is a good summary of sources on the topic, passed GAN, and should stay. Draco phyllum 09:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. I'm actually sympathetic to Ramsense, as the notability of the topic—which has been discussed in multiple academic books and journals—is clear to a blind man. While neither of their close rationales applied—meaning the close shouldn't have been made of course—frankly the nomination was as disruptve as the close. More so, in fact, as several edtors are going to have to defend an article that shouldn't need to be defended for the next 168 hours. Unless someone SNOW closes it of course. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 10:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One Star in Sight

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

Multiple citations failed verification. About all that seems to be passing verification are primary texts and biographies written by Thelema adherents. Article is something of a coatrack, more concerned with A∴A∴ and Great Work (Thelema) than with the actual topic of discussion. This article should be deleted with the notable material being merged, after verification of citations actually saying what they're citing, to those two articles. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)>[reply]
Delete this meaningless word salad only sourced to in-bubble "sources" - what I would call "woo." (I note that there is nothing worth merging into those other two articles either.) - Roxy the dog 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PC Chris

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. No noteworthy biographical information. The article has few sources, several of which are taken from social media such as Reddit and Twitter, which are not reliable. MidnightMayhem 10:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can mostly find articles about police constables named Chris... The sourcing now in the article isn't RS, this was the closest I could find [57]. We just don't have enough sourcing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are reliable, but they're entirely lists, and passing references. The bit of trivia about him briefly holding a record for largest payout seemed promising, that's the sort of thing that might get news media interested, but I can't find any articles about that. ApLundell (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ibtehal Abu Saad

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

WP:BLP1E Cabayi (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Engineering, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Microsoft#2020–present: Acquisitions, Xbox Series X/S, and Windows 11, last sentence about the 50th anniversary. I doubt that event is notable since it seems like ye regular burst of NotNews coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Fallon, Nevada shooting

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

A mentally incompetent man shoots two people, killing one. Do we really need to record that here for eternity? Are we helping either of the BLPs involved in this by naming them here? Yes, it got some attention, news loves shootings and trials, but in the end this has no lasting impact, no new laws, no criminal gangs uncovered, no mastermind behind bars... Fram (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Nevada. Fram (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS due to lack of WP:LASTING and a classic case of WP:DOGBITESMAN. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another senseless article from the true crime part of our project that really needs to be better about sensitivity and notability; this simply is neither. Nathannah • 📮 14:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a run-of-the-mill shooting (no better way to describe something like the in the United States unfortunately) lacking in notable coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens :(, per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Elder Scrolls Renewal Project

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

The Oblivion ~~remake~~remaster has brought these modders back into the limelight, but I am very dubious on the notability of the overarching project. Note that Skywind and Skyblivion already exist as articles and are obviously notable, but I'm not seeing the same level of notability for the mod team. Even stuff like this largely talks about Skywind. Notability is not inherited, as with any other game development studio, fan or not. ~~There's also no obvious place to redirect, as they are literally making 2 games.~~ Actually, Skyrim modding could be a potential place to redirect the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skyrim modding: They are mentioned in that article, under the section "Total conversions". silviaASH (inquire within) 09:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is full of reliable, secondary source coverage specific to the group and their projects, enough to establish their notability independent from the larger modding scene. I don't think Skywind is necessarily independently notable: you restored it from a redirect 20 minutes before nominating this, it cites only one secondary source, and hasn't been widely covered since 2014. Skywind can be adequately covered in summary style in its parent article, as is currently done. There's enough coverage of Morroblivion, Skywind, and the collective to justify a standalone article. I wouldn't be opposed to merging to Skyrim modding as I think this should be covered in summary style there too, but we can already see from the sources that it has enough coverage to keep and justify a split, dedicated article. czar 11:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are there: [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] So ultimately, the current state of an article means nothing as long as notability is demonstrated, and the idea that it hasn't been covered since 2014 is just untrue(?) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kebede Bedasso

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

Declined prod. 5 of the 6 sources are merely databases/results listing. The 6th source when translated is a small 1 line mention of Bedasso and not SIGCOV for meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. Those arguing keep should supply indepth sources and not invoke NEXIST which has been discounted by many editors and admins in these athlete AfDs. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Ethiopia. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I did expand the article just before it was nominated for deletion. Per comment, "It goes against our ethics on ADL for a nominator to dictate to the community which guidlines they should not invoke in their rationale/votes", I don't think it's acceptable to pre-empt valid P&G-based arguments in a nominating statement.

Per the WP:RS cited in the article, Bedasso was one of Ethiopia's fastest ever sprinters in the 1970s and is still one of their fastest today, and was one of their only Olympic sprinters. A similar article about an Ethiopian sprinter, Negussie Roba, was nominated for deletion, then sources were found and it became a GA. I think a similar amount of sourcing should exist here, but it would be in Ethiopian newspaper archives that we don't have access to right now. --Habst (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bedasso was one of Ethiopia's fastest ever sprinters in the 1970s and is still one of their fastest today, and was one of their only Olympic sprinters. This may be true but not reasons for inherent notability. We need actual sources. LibStar (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ethiopia at the 1972 Summer Olympics - We don't have sources, as admitted above. We have to have sources to write an article. The redirect ATF preserves page history should sources one day become available. Does not pass WP:GNG, WP:NATH nor WP:BASIC. The NEXIST argument is spurious. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No evidence of the required IRS SIGCOV sourcing. NEXIST is irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sirfuboy. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, which mandates in clear language: "All sports biographies . . . must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Here, no such SIGCOV has been presented. A redirect preserves the article history, such that it can be restored if and when SIGCOV is found. The notion that there might (or might not) be SIGCOV of an Ethiopian relay team that did not even finish its preliminary heat in no way trumps the clear and mandatory language of prong 5 quoted above. Cbl62 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Malmgren

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not a single piece of WP:SIGCOV in this BLP (a possible WP:VANITY BLP, I'm speculating [but don't know], based on the licensing of the Sears glamor shot in the infobox). A standard WP:BEFORE finds nothing either. WP:POLOUTCOMES does not presume notability for the minor post of special assistant. Fellows of the RSA -- the only other possible claim to WP:N -- are apparently self-nominated persons who pay a $100 registration fee [65]. Chetsford (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Economics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chetsford's read of the sourcing appears correct, and cuts well through the glut. My own WP:BEFORE did not yield more significant results. JFHJr (㊟) 04:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I looked for, did not find sigcov. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. While there was canvassing to this AfD, many of the keep !votes included policy-based reasons, and there were only two delete !votes, one of which was "weak" and the other based on the current references in the article. Ultimately, the AfD nominator agreed with the keep rationales, has, as a result of this discussion, identified references establishing notability, and is working on a new version that improves the referencing problems in the current version. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Malmgren

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

The late Harald Malmgren has catapulted to awareness in the wild corners of the internet populated by UFO enthusiasts due to his whacky claims about marauding space aliens. He was a minor staffer in the JFK administration and later worked as a financial advisor, though UFO enthusiasts on social media have recently reimagined him as the man who saved the world from nuclear apocalypse during the Cuban Missile Crisis (e.g. [66]) (based, apparently, on Malmgren's claims of having beaten Curtis LeMay in a staring contest).

His elegantly WP:REFBOMBed BLP consists of 24 sources, each of which is either non-RS or non-WP:SIGCOV. Large segments -- containing illustrious assertions about his educational pedigree and globetrotting accomplishments -- are totally unreferenced.

A standard WP:BEFORE finds many bylined articles by the man and mentions in non-RS media like sldinfo.com, The Daily Mail, and NewsNation (which we are proscribed from using as a source for any coverage touching the topic of UFOs under our WP:UFONATION consensus). Note that the obit that is, as of this timestamp, reference 1, appears to be a paid or reader-submitted obit. Chetsford (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC); edited 07:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment his first book, International Economic Peacekeeping in Phase II got a few reviews: [67], [68], [69]. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 07:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. While I'm not sure a three-quarters page review in Agricultural History counts as "significant critical attention" under the WP:AUTHOR criterion, it's helpful to have the additional context for !voters in either direction. Chetsford (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree it's definitely not enough by itself, but took me a while to find so I thought I'd link here in case anyone else finds more. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there's also a few reviews of his edited work Pacific Basin Development. The American Interests: [70], [71], [72], [73]. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, England, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete While I agree with the assessment that the page may be refbombed with non-rs or WP:SIGCOV qualifying links, I do worry that the nominator appears to have an agenda against the BLP subject based off of their analysis using colorful language such as "wild corners of the internet populated by UFO enthusiasts due to his whacky claims about marauding space aliens." Would caution the reliability of any unsubstantiated claims by the nominator.

Brenae wafato (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion nomination appears to be a blatant attempt to erase a distinguished public servant's documented career immediately following his UFO-related statements, this is a troubling pattern of historical revisionism that should have no place on Wikipedia. The nominator dismissively mischaracterizes Malmgren as a "minor staffer" despite his serving four presidents, heading Pentagon economics groups, and holding Senate-confirmed ambassador positions. The deletion rationale ignores overwhelming evidence of notability: his papers republished in landmark economic collections, his work cited by the Supreme Court, his joint chairmanship with former Secretary of State Eagleburger, and his advisory roles to multiple heads of state. Most concerning is the invocation of special "UFONATION" rules when standard notability criteria are unquestionably met. This nomination reveals a clear bias against individuals who speak on certain topics regardless of their documented historical significance. Wikipedia should not be a platform for selectively erasing inconvenient historical figures.

I would not be surprised if this is the work of Guerilla Skeptics. OliverWX (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)— OliverWX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I wouldn't be surprised either. I find the timing of this deletion disturbing. Kef71 (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)— Kef71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep this page. Looks like a blatant attempt to censor meaningful and accurate information. 207.172.46.56 (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that. The blatant disregard of impartiality displayed by the nominator by a prejudging, defaming statement like "due to his whacky claims about marauding space aliens" is IMO not appropriate for a wikipedia editor and part of the problem why wikipedia faces so much criticism.

And as others have mentioned, it seems everything else than coincidental that this page of H.M. gets nominated for deletion together with the page of his daughter within 24h of a documentation where discusses the controversial topic of UFO's/UAP's.

The topic of UAP or any other controversial topic can't and must not be a reason for disregarding his accomplishments in the past. I agree that this page needs improvement with better sources, but this is no reason for deletion. KEEP. 2001:9E8:4DE7:9C00:C4AC:E82D:22E2:DE7D (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources about this individual that do meet the guidelines. If they are not currently present, then they need to be added. However, that is not the specified reason for nomination of deletion and therefore should not be considered in the voting process. It can be argued that everyone has "whacky" views by someone else out there and if that was the criteria then nobody would have a Wiki page. Instead of deletion, there should be a annotation/citation speaking to his views to give context to who Mr. Malmgren was. Deletion of this page based on comments this individual made on a podcast does not at all land within the spirit of the Wikipedia project. HumbleWikiMan (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voters should be aware that you are potentially a member of the so-called "Guerilla Skeptics", a group dedicated to editing and deleting the pages of figures who make UFO-related statements. Harald Malmgren's credentials and significant political contributions have been attested by and in a multitude of credible sources in several government websites, which clearly show him to be more than a "minor staffer" or a "financial advisor":

archives.gov (AAD) – 1974 State-Dept cable logs his official visit to Canberra (“VISIT OF AMBASSADOR HARALD MALMGREN”), confirming his ambassadorial status in overseas trade diplomacy.

congress.gov (official legislative portal) records his presidential nomination and Senate confirmation as Deputy Special Representative for Trade Negotiations (ambassadorial rank) in April–May 1972.

federalreserve.gov – a 2008 oral-history interview with Kenneth Guenther recounts Malmgren’s stint as acting Deputy USTR, his attempted elevation, and eventual departure—useful color on his career trajectory.

history.state.gov holds several Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) volumes that log Malmgren’s negotiations as follows:

1968 poultry-trade (“Chicken War”) talks, naming him on the STR delegation.

1974 Council on International Economic Policy review of grain-reserve policy, listing him as Deputy STR and senior adviser.

cia.gov declassified distribution list (1970s) shows “Ambassador Harald Malmgren, Deputy Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, 1800 G Street NW,” confirming both his diplomatic rank and office.

List of some of his books and articles includes but is not limited to the following (in no particular order):

1. International Economic Peacekeeping in Phase II (New York: Quadrangle Books for the Atlantic Council, 276 pp.), 1973

2. Trade Wars or Trade Negotiations? Nontariff Barriers and Economic Peacekeeping (Washington DC: Atlantic Council, 101 pp.), 1970

3. Pacific Basin Development: The American Interests (Lexington MA: Lexington Books for the ODC, 148 pp.), 1972

4. “Trade Policy and Trade Negotiations in the 1980s,” in The U.S. and the World Economy (Quadrangular Forum series), 1981

5. International Order for Public Subsidies (London: Trade Policy Research Centre, Thames Essays No. 11, 74 pp.), 1977

6. “Perestroika: The Metamorphosis of the Soviet Economy”, The World Economy (book-review essay), 1989

7. “Canada, the United States and the World Economy” (with Marie-Josée Drouin), 1981

8. “Coming Trade Wars? Neo-Mercantilism and Foreign Policy”, Foreign Policy No. 1: 115-143, 1970-1971 168.187.123.141 (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both current nominations for deletion have come within the past 24 hours, conspicuously immediately after the release of Harald's appearance on the American Alchemy podcast, where he discussed unconventional topics. Is the push to delete his wiki page because of this interview? 2603:7080:B700:7D63:BA48:84A3:1A35:68D8 (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is ZERO reason for the deletion of this page and no matter how many times it is deleted, it will be brought back and resurrected. 68.188.206.150 (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, nonsense like this is why I stopped supporting Wikipedia financially. Thehun06 (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC) — Thehun06 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Financial support has nothing to do with notability of this article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Financial support has absolutely something to do with this deletion request. As long as you allow a small, unscientific, dogmatic group of people to run amok on a project that is by and large supported by public donations, the financial support of said project should be called in question. 2A00:1E:8A02:D01:57E5:A688:970E:BDCA (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My sentiments exactly. Well said. 79.131.108.226 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same 98.186.194.246 (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same user nominated to have Dr. Pippa Malmgren's Wikipedia page deleted also. We can call a spade a spade, less than 24 hours after Harald Malmgren's final interview airs this user nominates both pages to be deleted, its expressing clear bias against the Malmgrens and a shameless attempt at censorship and to belittle their characters. CrunchyDolphin (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in addition to the reviews of his works that I linked above, it looks like there is substantial coverage of his diplomatic work (see, for instance [74], paragraph here) and this article about his scholarship. I think there's enough to establish GNG/NSCHOLAR between all this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion seems somewhat Draconian and smacks of censorship - fuck sakes, Newton believed in the occult, I don't see anyone calling for Isaac Newton's page to be deleted on the grounds he believed in a bunch of dodgy shit as well as figured out gravity - but I do agree, keeping it factual, tied to verified published articles, not YouTube and X sources, definitely not a bad idea and somewhat overdue.

Online UFO circles have reinvented this man based wholly on his later "disclosures" concerning UFOs and that does need to be addressed.

Already these people are threatening to hold Wikipedia editors to account for crimes against humanity - here - really the matter should be referred straight to Redit where these kinds of comments are currently hosted - whole thread link here.

Definitely do agree, the whole thing needs sorting, if starting over from fresh is the easier option - do it but only on the basis its replaced. The UFO mob are going to edit it, we just have to flag it and stay on top of any re-edits.

Weird how people apparently so keen on the truth don't like anything that contradicts what they want to here but - hey ho, off to the salt mines we go.

Also can we have a block and removal of baseless accusations of anyone supporting this deletion proposition as being members of Gorilla Sceptics or whatever boogeyman this week: any accusations along these kinds of line by editors, prove it or get off the pot.

This is an incendiary subject at the best of times, please - let's not add to that by making triggering accusations of guilt by association simply through editors doing their jobs and sticking to policy.

By rights this article should be scrapped, it's riddled with inaccuracies and blatant miss truth - a do-over is a sane compromise, someone will re-start an article whether we agree on this or not: lets head that off at the pass and stick and do a factual job.

That's all we're here for, nothing else. Einheit947 (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a totally fair point, and I apologise for the "baseless accusations" I have no proof its Guerilla Skeptics.

Apologies for getting heated about the topic. I got heated due to the nomination for the deletion of this article along with Malmgrens daughter's article less than 24 hours after a 4 hour video comes out of a mans claims on his deathbed. I find that extremely disrespectful and it does seem an agenda is being pushed to say the least. OliverWX (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Mr. Malmgren wrote the page himself, so I think starting over is necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hmalmgren/sandbox 172.59.231.189 (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Oliver - we just have to watch what we say, r/UFOs are tracking this discussion, so the minute one uses the name of that group - that's it, it's a fact as far as that sub is concerned - proponents for deletion - even editing - are just up to no good and enemies of democracy or, whatever other bug they woke up with firmly up their backsides with today.

Today that means its it's us they're gunning for, and - as I relay - they are talking holding us to account, whatever that entails, and that's all the veiled threat we need to get something done about them.

I suggest we collectively report their behaviour to the Reddit platform, screen grab the whole debacle - it's only going to get worse if we don't nip this thing in the bud, now.

The article, it just needs doing over and clearing out the weeds. We should really just have done that rather than call for a deletion, it's just attracting fire whereas straight editing to guidelines and non of the UFO lot would have noticed anything.

It's disingenuous leaving this as Malmgren's legacy - let's just get the facts straight and keep them that way. Einheit947 (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Report their behaviour to the Reddit platform".

Kindly showcase the forensic evidence you have obtained against users of Reddit, and the "Reddit rule" that has been broken. It appears you don't like what many Wikipedia users have to say, therefore you are fighting against it based on your emotion. That is not how online encyclopaedias purport to operate, particularly this one. KushKushyKushier (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to strongly disagree with your characterization of the Reddit discussion, which I initiated and originally posted myself.

The issue is not about UFO beliefs but about the preservation of historical record for a notable public servant with a distinguished career. Your suggestion that we should "collectively report" Reddit users for discussing a public Wikipedia deletion process is deeply concerning and runs counter to Wikipedia's principles.

The timing of this deletion nomination that immediately follows Malmgren's posthumous interview—clearly suggests motivation beyond mere content guidelines. If editorial improvements were needed, standard wiki processes like ^{[citation needed]} tags would be appropriate, not complete deletion of a significant historical figure's documented career. OliverWX (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The book reviews above are fine for AUTHOR. Rest is discussions of a political career. The UFO stuff is interesting I suppose, neither here nor there. Oaktree b (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No legit grounds for deletion. Keep the page ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hempanicker (talk • contribs) 16:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The timing is obviously linked to the release of a controversial interview. That shouldn't be a reason to erase an article that has existed since 2015. GalacticGardener (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That the editor/reviewer talks about "catapulting" to awareness due to his recent discussions on UAP reveals the editor's bias. They rushed to delete, as well as his daughter. Unacceptable. The editor/reviewer should be banned from any further editing given this is now considered a scholarly field of inquiry. TruthBeGood (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am not seeing any evidence of "his whacky claims about marauding space aliens". Where do I find this information to review? This seems like a biased opinion without supporting evidence. NIPeditor (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Malmgren is an important figure in economics and history. His claims about UFOs are not relevant to his importance. Malmgren should have an article on wikipedia. The article could include statements he has made about UFOs, but including that information does not endorse any particular view on UFOs or anything else. The fact that the UFO community is extremely interested in Malmgren should have no bearing on this article. I have used and supported wikipedia for many years. The point of wikipedia is to provide information on topics and people that are significant. The information about what a person has done or said should be presented in a neutral way that allows readers to draw their own conclusions. Wikipedia should not be censored. Readers should be presented with information so they can decide for themselves whether Malmgren's statements about UFOs are true or made up. 4.35.159.225 (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calling him a “minor staffer” and ridiculing his UAP commentary with phrases like “whacky claims about marauding space aliens” and “wild corners of the internet.” is loaded and mocking and violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV). 1.41.26.224 (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Harald Malmgren plainly satisfies Wikipedia’s notability criteria under WP:BIO (significant public positions) and WP:GNG (coverage in reliable, independent sources):

1. High-level government service: Served as senior economic adviser under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford; confirmed by the U.S. Senate to an ambassador-rank Trade Negotiations post (congress.gov entry for his April 1972 nomination).

2. Academic and policy impact: Authored International Economic Peacekeeping in Phase II and Trade Wars or Trade Negotiations?, each reviewed in peer-reviewed journals (e.g. JSTOR stable URL 24356809 for an Agricultural History review; stable URL 44834257 for a Journal of Conflict Resolution review).

3. Independent media coverage:

The Irish Times profile “Meet the Malmgrens: the extraordinary family U.S. presidents turned to” provides extensive biographical detail and context to his career (IrishTimes.com/meet-the-malmgrens-the-extraordinary-family-us-presidents-turned-to-1.3284559).

News.com.au ran a feature on his post-government work and UAP commentary, passing WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT standards.

4. Primary archival documentation:

National Archives cable logs confirm his ambassadorial status during a 1974 Canberra visit (archives.gov – “VISIT OF AMBASSADOR HARALD MALMGREN”).

Foreign Relations of the United States volumes record his leading roles in U.S.–Soviet trade and agricultural negotiations (history.state.gov volumes for 1968 “Chicken War” and 1974 grain policy).

A 2008 Federal Reserve oral-history interview (federalreserve.gov archive) cites his tenure as Acting Deputy USTR.

Neutrality and tone: The deletion nomination relies heavily on pejorative language (“whacky claims,” “wild corners of the internet”), breaching WP:NPOV. Whether or not one accepts his UAP statements has no bearing on his decades of documented public service.

Policy-guided improvement, not deletion: Any lingering issues with “refbombed” or non-RS sources are better handled by cleanup under WP:ATD and WP:VERIFY—trimming unsupported material and replacing it with the wealth of high-quality references already cited—rather than erasing a well-established article.

For these reasons, Harald Malmgren’s article should be retained and improved, not deleted. 1.41.26.224 (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-

As other have shown, he was a high level government official that worked in multiple administrations and also had a good amount of peer-reviewed academic work coming from a multitude of reliable sources.

This editor on the other hand is anti-anything with "UFOs" and the (TWO) nomination(s) for deletion is suspiciously timed to news coming about an interview with the subject matter involving "UFOs"

Admins should investigate this, along with other AfDs from this editor, for being created in bad faith. Eamesheard (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Initial and secondary deletion requests appear to be in bad faith. The biography is easy to improve with better sources:

CIA.gov sourced distribution list - #53 Ambassador Harald Malmgren - page 2

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79S01091A000300010009-9.pdf

.

United States International Trade Representative

Office of the Historian - Foreign relations participant Harald Malmgren STR

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v09/d363

.

International Trade Senate Hearing Witness

Senate Hearing before the Subcommittee on International Trade - Public Witness Harald Malmgren, Malmgren, Inc.

https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HRG98-1056.pdf

.

Work cited for Nixon, Ford and Japanese manufacturers, contemporaneous to Carter

Congressional Record - Extension of Remarks. Harald Malmgren activity as an international trade negotiator, quoting from the article, "When Jimmy Carter became president, the Japanese cartel faced a minefield of proceedings and investigations, and in 1977, five cartel members-Hitachi, Mitsubishi Electric, Sanyo, Sharp, and Toshiba-hired former deputy special trade representative Harald Malmgren to solve their problems.

Malmgren who had served under Nixon and Ford and had helped Nixon prepare for a trade summit with Japan, was well equipped to earn his $300,000 fee-and he quickly delivered. As the Japan Economic Journal reported: "In three short months, Mr. Malmgren was able to talk to all sides involved in the dispute, and work out a com- promise .... "

That compromise, later known as the Orderly Marketing Agreement , limited Japanese TV exports to the United States to 1.5 million units a year for three years. but it allowed the Japanese to use their newly acquired U.S. manufacturing base to fill orders that exceeded the quota. - p. 29008

https://www.congress.gov/101/crecb/1990/10/12/GPO-CRECB-1990-pt20-4-3.pdf

.

Listed as "eminently qualified expert" in Congressional Joint Hearing

Congressional Joint Hearing - THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY AND WORLD ECONOMY WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1980, page 3: The witnesses that we have assembled for this morning's hearings are eminently qualified experts who can help us deal with these issues.

They are Dr. Robert Baldwin, of the University of Wisconsin; Dr. David Cole, of the University of Michigan; Ms. Maryann Keller who is with Paine Webber Mitchell Hutchins; and Dr. Harald Malmgren, who is a former deputy special representative for trade negotiations.

We welcome this distinguished panel.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-96jhrg64892O/pdf/CHRG-96jhrg64892O.pdf

.

Working for Nixon

Nixon Library - U.S. CONCURRENT COUNTERPART MEETING PARTICIPANTS May 31, 1973

Kjarvalsstadir, Reykjavik, Iceland

~Harald Malmgren, Deputy Special Representative

https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/virtuallibrary/documents/PDD/1973/100%20May%2016-31%201973.pdf

.

All of the above was quick to source from a simple Google search. His academic work is referenced in places such as Notre Dame, Princeton, Harvard...

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1353&context=jleg

https://swh.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles90-92/Starr_1991_Middle_Class_and_National_Health_Reform.pdf

https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jol/wp-content/uploads/sites/86/2016/02/HLL108_crop.pdf Gremchild (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are we supposed to act in good faith when the deletion of this wiki entry is obviously in bath faith?

Weak ~~delete~~ Keep With largely the same caveats as Brenae wafato above. While this afd appears to have become a lightning rod for "skeptics vs believers" UFO discourse the key question before us is whether high-quality sources indicating notability exist. With the refbombing issue above and the absence of SIGCOV that would indicate deletion although I could be persuaded otherwise if good-quality sources to establish notability could be presented. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223, can I ask what about the sources I linked you find lacking? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually missed your comments. Reviewing now. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK having looked at the links above I think the case for weak notability under WP:NAUTHOR is met. Article cleanup doesn't require deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong trivial and easy keep: NOTE -- AFD creator @Chetsford: has spammed and bridaged this AFD:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Haral_Malmgren

The timing of this in alignment with the release of a posthumous release of a video stating the USA is engaged in a UFO cover up after being found notable in the 2015 AFD is unfortunate. This article had been on my eye for a while to expand as he's so interesting and notable. Trivially expansive sourcing, and whatever the fate of this article, expect to find it right back in Article space shortly with sourcing as comprehensive as any of the articles I've worked on. We are all nothing if not slaves to reality and it's time for this comical assault on anyone who says even the tiniest "pro UFO stuff" as a minute tiny fraction of their life to be ended on this site.

Each of these excludes the terms "aliens" or "UFOs":

Expansive sourcing exists on regular Google search (limited to pre-2025 as well).

Expansive sourcing exists on Google News.

Expansive sourcing exists on Google Books.

Expansive sourcing exists on Google Scholar.

Such research should be compulsory before nominating for deletion. Strong trivial and easy keep. As I said: delete, and I'll rebuild it with double the sourcing as soon as I have a moment. Reality wins this fight, not the Fringe Noticeboard. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Google searches you point to list a variety of non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources such as bylined articles, or sources from non-RS like NewsNation (which is non-usable per WP:UFONATION. You can't just do a Google search for a guy's name and say "there must be sources - I got a lotta hits!" Chetsford (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then suggest that the article have additional sources, rather than delete the entire article, which has been on Wikipedia since 2015. Ophello (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Beyond the issues raised above, I believe having an article on the topic serves an important public service as a point to collect the contrary parts of the Malmgren story. If the current article does not contain a balanced view, that is an opportunity to improve it, as there are few other locations on the 'net where such information would naturally collect. As always, articles should be fixed, not deleted. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the question of whether someone's views are accurate or "whacky" really has no bearing on the question of notability. Similarly, the popularity that someone might have in "wild corners of the internet" has no bearing on the question of notability. Per Very Polite Person there's plenty of sourcing out there and there's no question that the article could be improved. Deletion seems out of the question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales - Very Polite Person's !vote is a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. They point to Google searches and don't list a single actual source. Per WP:BEFORE, I did the same thing prior to AfD but actually read the results. These are things like bylined articles (fails WP:INDEPENDENT) or articles on non-RS (e.g. NewsNation which can't be used for UFO adjacent topics per WP:UFONATION. Punching someone's name into a search engine and getting a lot of hits does not demonstrate "plenty of sourcing". Chetsford (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This attempt to scrub Harald Malmgren from Wikipedia is so heavy-handed that Jimmy Wales himself stepped in to comment in favor of keeping this article. You should really think about what that says about your choices here.

Also, I will briefly comment on the absurdity of treating NewsNation as an illegitimate source when it comes to UFOs/UAP but a legitimate source when it comes to any other topic. It should be allowed in general.

But even if it isn't, here's the RS you claim doesn't exist:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/meet-the-malmgrens-the-extraordinary-family-us-presidents-turned-to-1.3284559 Somekindofmutant (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the nature of the original request to delete shows extreme bias and lack of any reasonable objectivity. Allowing such intemperate censorship to succeed risks making this resource (Wikipedia) irrelevant.

Fjd2PhD (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Deletion seems out of the question"

It's somewhat draconian, absolutely agreed. However, the article is a complete pigs ear. We've already got a witch hunt going on about this over on reddit - now a former Moderator is editorialising you.

They've got users riled up demanding editors be called to account for their actions, very clear threats of reprisals should we not concede to the UFO communities version of Harald Malmgren: I wholly agree, deletion is ridiculous but are we really going to be bullied by a full on mob...?

We should be petitioning reddit for take-downs effective immediately as well as punitive actions against the agitators at work here - they're not joking some of them really do live in the kind of world they prattle on about - its us in the firing line.

Are you going to support us or throw us under the bus here: this article needs serious fixing and these UFO nits are equating our work with censorship.

Your support would be appreciated here. Einheit947 (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be balanced. That Guerilla Skeptics are bullying areas they think of as pseudo-science when ACTUAL science is being done on the matter questions YOUR motives. Act in a balanced way and you won't attract the "mob" as you call it (your use of the term questions your own attempt tb bias with emotion rather than logic). TruthBeGood (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your rhetoric about "witch hunts" and trying to petition Reddit for "take-downs" of legitimate discussion reveals a concerning lack of understanding about both Wikipedia's purpose and the current state of UAP/UFO research.

Your dismissive attitude toward what you call "the UFO community" ignores that this field has tons of declassified documents that include a lot of evidence towards "something" going on, which I am guessing you haven't even been bothered to look.

Please stop being dogmatic. OliverWX (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please look into @Chetsford's past nominations and edits. His use of terms like "whacky" and his constant editorial on figures to do with ufology shows actions in bad faith with an agenda. 206.121.189.142 (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 01:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You realize that there was legislation demanding the DoD reveal what they know about Non-human intelligence right? For reference: https://www.congress.gov/amendment/118th-congress/senate-amendment/2610/textThis gentleman has the relevant experiences and clearances of someone who would know. Wikipedia's reputation is damaged if they delete articles because of personal bias when there is budding evidence to suggest he may be telling the truth. That is ugly censorship. 2600:1014:B051:5656:2C62:D6FF:D22D:9467 (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Funny how this guy asks for this page and Pippa's page to be deleted too right after Harald's 4hr death bed video drops on YouTube. Not suspicious at all. P Jp0202 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Malmgren is a well-known, impactful individual who served in 4 different US Presidential Administrations. I would suggest one look into whether the wiki-user chatsford should have their editor rights removed. This is clear censorship and I see this user is obsessed with trying to delete multiple individuals related to Congress’ UAP legislation topic Observer157 (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Malmgren was a senior advisor to four US Presidents, Pentagon insider with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Oxford-educated economist whose work was cited by the Supreme Court.

According to policy and common sense, there are zero legitimate grounds for deletion. The timing is suspect - a man with unimpeachable credentials who held positions with access to highly classified information makes UFO-related statements, and suddenly his entire documented career is nominated for deletion. Unimpeachable references will accumulate as time passes. It is surely not the right time to delete. There are no grounds for deletion.

Keep Malmgren becoming notable for reasons not covered in his Wiki article is not a reason for deleting that article. Rather, the article should contain accurate information about him rather than the misinformation alleged to be spread elsewhere. If there are problems with the quality of his article, it should be improved. It would be preferable even to restrict who can edit it rather than to simply delete it. 2601:243:CF82:D350:9F1F:5DAD:44FF:B22 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for obvious reasons, it's a little ridiculous that it was nominated a 2nd time. Suppafly (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notorious hoaxes, delusions and hysterias all have a place in Wikipedia, as long as the article is properly written. Furthermore, we collectively have no credentials to independently judge Malmngren's claims nor is Wikipedians' place to do so. Subramanian ^talk 16:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! Y’all have no souls & are actually pathetic trying to delete digital access to an actual hero’s wiki page?! Access to (just part) of the digital legacy of apparently one of the most humble men who actually stopped nuclear war? The genie has been out of the bottle about NHI/aliens/UAP for a while, so what are yall even trying to suppress anymore? Go cowardly poke buttons on your computers elsewhere- this page is staying up- his daughter’s page better stay up as well. 73.115.16.180 (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Valid concerns are raised above about the content of the article. These do not affect the notability of the subject. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Harald Malmgren meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines under WP:GNG and WP:BIO due to his significant, well-documented contributions as a scholar, diplomat, and senior aide to Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford. Contrary to the nomination’s claim that the article’s 24 sources are non-reliable or lack significant coverage (WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV), several references provide substantial, independent coverage in reliable sources. For example, Malmgren’s book International Economic Peacekeeping in Phase II (Quadrangle Books, 1972) is a peer-reviewed work cited by governments globally and discussed in academic reviews, establishing his influence in trade policy. Additionally, sources like The New York Times and The Washington Post (e.g., articles from the 1970s covering his role in the Trade Act of 1974 and the Tokyo Round negotiations) offer significant coverage of his diplomatic work, meeting WP:SIGCOV.

The accusation of WP:REFBOMB is overstated. While the article may include some weaker sources, this is addressable through editing to remove or replace them with stronger ones, per WP:ATD. Malmgren’s roles as a senior aide and advisor to foreign leaders and CEOs are verifiable through primary and secondary sources, independent of recent UFO-related claims, which are a minor part of the article. The nomination’s focus on these fringe associations risks WP:BIAS, as it sidelines Malmgren’s decades-long, well-documented career. Deleting a longstanding article (created in 2015) immediately after the man’s death and release of a deathbed video discussing a controversial topic would undermine Wikipedia’s goal of neutral, comprehensive coverage. This request is highly suspect and emotionally laden from its initial wording “whacky” and “marauding space aliens”, is evidentially intentional mockery. KushKushyKushier (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would this be considered for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:b061:c61f:799c:b52c:7f11:5d74 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DO. NOT. Delete this!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.93.59 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly believe that this article is notable under Wikipedia notability guidelines. And it is being unfairly targeted based on editor’s personal biases. Wikitehedia (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some editing out of fawning language praising his work. There are clearly attempts to make him look important by mentioning he worked with famous and important people, and got degrees from famous colleges. That does not establish notability. Nor does writing things or having jobs. But being being a Chair at one research university and a Professor at another satisfied notability as an academic, and some of his writings appear to have the recognition to support notability. Edison (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a RS that verifies he was a named chair? And, being "a professor" does not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. Chetsford (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears that this discussion is being canvassed from at least three separate Reddit threads (1, 2, 3) so I would advise the closing admin to take that into account. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good call ArtemisiaGentileschiFan. I'd also note that none of the "Keep" arguments are policy based (e.g. "it serves a public interest" or "this article should be kept because it's being targeted by biased people", or "keep for obvious reasons", or "if you delete this I'll just rewrite it", or "keep because you all have no souls", or "keep because the timining of the nomination is disturbing", or "keep - the nominator is a secret CIA plant trying to stop UFO disclosure", [75] etc.). Chetsford (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be fair Chetsford. Some of us have been persuaded by the presence of multiple reliable source reviews of the subject's books meeting the standard for WP:NAUTHOR. This does, however, demonstrate the problem with broad canvassing and I hope the parties doing the canvassing are paying attention to this:

When you fill up an AfD with garbage arguments it becomes harder for the closer to find the actually appropriate arguments within all the chaff. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once this AfD closes the BLP will be paired-down to what can be sourced. That will be his name, date of birth/date, and the fact he wrote a couple books. There's literally nothing else here that is supported by RS. That's not the intent of NAUTHOR. Chetsford (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's spooky how poorly Chetsford is handling this issue. Malmgren's article was deemed legitimate 10 years ago. Then, less than 24 hours after his deathbed confession/interview is published, Chetsford decided to try to scrub both Malmgren and his daughter from Wikipedia. Let me help you acknowledge that, UFOs aside, he is indeed a significant character:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/meet-the-malmgrens-the-extraordinary-family-us-presidents-turned-to-1.3284559

He also has more Google Scholar citations than most modern professors despite never having been one.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=CdtkwBIAAAAJ&hl=en Somekindofmutant (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: he was apparently a professor for two years. Somekindofmutant (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop these personal attacks immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After the reddit posts, there are quite a lot of !votes here. But none of them seem to address the actual reason for nomination. The closest is Very Polite Person's keep vote, which contains four links, so if you were in a hurry, you might think it was a policy-backed argument, but a close reading of it reveals that it does not address the problem that only non-RS sources exist. VPP simply links to google searches, and implies that there's probably a good source in there somewhere even if they, personally, were unable to find one. That's obviously not enough. ApLundell (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been present on Wikipedia since 2015. If the contention is with sources, let the criticisms be based on that and recommend improvements to the article or have the article locked. The justification for its existence should not suddenly be brought into question simply because it has become popular with certain groups. Original poster is clearly biased. Ophello (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, some editors new to Wikipedia seem to be voting to "keep" the article intact, but this discussion (and any deletion discussion) is only about whether to keep an article on the subject. The content that is not cited or cited only to primary sources, will need to be greatly cut down or, after this discussion concludes, removed entirely. Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Since this page has been up since 2015, why was it noted for deletion now, if the information on the page is "innaccurate"? Is it because he just died recently? Deleting this page makes no logical sense. Pathetic. Keep this great man's page online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.216.191 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Strong Keep

I oppose the deletion of this article based on the following:

1. **Demonstrated Notability Across Multiple Domains**

  Harald Malmgren served as a senior advisor to four U.S. presidents—Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford—and held ambassador-level roles confirmed by Congress. His work influenced U.S. trade policy during pivotal moments in history, including Cold War negotiations and international economic restructuring. His involvement in global affairs is documented in government sources such as *congress.gov*, *federalreserve.gov*, *archives.gov*, and *history.state.gov*.

2. **Reliable Sources Exist**

  His books have been reviewed in academic journals and cited in publications from respected institutions. These sources meet the WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR notability standards. If some references in the article are weak, that is grounds for improvement—not deletion.

3. **Bias in the Nomination**

  The nominator’s language (“whacky claims,” “wild corners of the internet”) raises concerns of WP:NPOV violations. Wikipedia should not promote dismissiveness or editorial tone when evaluating longstanding articles on public figures.

4. **Suspicious Timing**

  This page has existed since 2015. Nominating it within 24 hours of Malmgren’s death and the release of his controversial interview creates the appearance of an ideologically motivated deletion.

5. **ATD – Fix it, Don’t Nix it**

  Weak or outdated material should be edited, trimmed, or replaced—not deleted outright. This approach aligns with WP:ATD and the mission of Wikipedia to preserve and improve informative content, not erase it.

Villageidiots1 (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article sufficiently establishes notability through sources. And that's all that needs to be said. Jtrainor (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for sure Shane O'Sullivan the 1 (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as Nom Given the intensity off-WP canvassing, I withdraw the AfD nomination. There's an easier way to handle this that doesn't encumber a closer with all this rigmarole. I'll make a note to take care of this in a couple weeks.Strike withdrawal. I failed to notice there was already another Delete !vote and withdrawal is, therefore, not appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC); edited 21:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you need to "take care of" other than improving sourcing? You tried to remove an article that you know had no business being removed. And it was so egregious that Jimmy Wales weighed in. Do better. Somekindofmutant (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Chetsford (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you also nominated to have Pippa Malmgren's and Christopher Mellon's pages deleted as well there is absolutely reason for worry. Appears you have a clear bias and agenda to push and are using absolutely any justification to use the most extreme action of having entire pages deleted. Any true Wikipedia editor should be embarrassed on your behalf, like Wales is. CrunchyDolphin (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This editor should be investigated for operating in bad faith Eamesheard (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"there is absolutely reason for worry" All that is going to happen, will happen. Don't stress about it. Chetsford (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~This guy is clearly acting in bad faith, he is working within the system to push an agenda. 206.121.189.142 (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please refer to Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 01:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article requires cleanup, but there is a lengthy article from the irish times, here and another article from news.com.au. Which both pass WP:RS, WP:Independent and add to notability. This is in addition to the sources already present in the article. Synonimany (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These don't meet our standards for WP:SIGCOV. Chetsford (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument hinges on dismissing two feature-length profiles as “not significant,” but that directly contradicts WP:SIGCOV:

> “Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed.”

–– Irish Times “Meet the Malmgrens…” runs over 30 paragraphs, tracing Harald Malmgren’s entire career—from Yale and Oxford, to his “whizz kids” days in the Pentagon, to advising four presidents—and includes extensive quotes and context, far beyond a mere mention .

–– News.com.au likewise ran a stand-alone article on Malmgren’s post-White House work and his UAP statements, complete with multiple paragraphs of biographical background, direct quotations, and analysis—again satisfying “significant coverage.”

Because both outlets are independent, reliable news organizations and have each devoted substantive, standalone pieces to Harald Malmgren, they fully meet WP:RS, WP:INDEPENDENT and the significant coverage test under WP:SIGCOV. Dismissing them wholesale ignores the very purpose of SIGCOV—to ensure that genuine, in-depth media profiles qualify a subject for a standalone article. 1.41.26.224 (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it adresses him in detail, no original research is required and it's the main focus of these two articles, so WP:SIGCOV is met. Synonimany (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets NAUTHOR, based on the reviews in the article and online. From my experience in WP:DELSORT/LIT, the reviews of his work should be enough. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a PhD thesis giving a more in-depth overview of him: https://theses.hal.science/tel-00721620/file/Arena_D.Phil.pdf ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ~ HAL333 01:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nom (2nd time) and keep ... a couple additional sources have emerged during the discussion. The article can be salvaged after all the cruft and non-RS are removed. I've started a new draft here. It will be better to rewrite it than delete it. Chetsford (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sharjah Sustainable City

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

There is no reliably sourced coverage of the subject. None of the sourcing in this article is independent of the UAE government, resulting in a ludicrously credulous and promotional article of this UAE government project. Thenightaway (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KapCon

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. I can't find any independent, reliable sources. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and New Zealand. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Clearly fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Nunn (artist)

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

Nunn appears to be a successful professional in his field of illustration, but after a fair bit of looking I can't turn up much proper, independent sigcov. None of his three illustrated books pass a strict WP:NBOOK, though the Corbyn Colouring Book got a good number of brief mentions. I found a non-independent interview, but no proper profiles. I don't see WP:NCREATIVE or WP:GNG here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are too thin for a pass at notability... He's not listed in the Getty ULAN [76], this was the only hit on the name [77], but it's an unrelated child. I don't see enough reviews/substantial reviews to pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found - and have added into the article - a couple of sources with more WP:SIGCOV - road.cc (review of the Tour de France book) and BuzzFeed (review of the Jeremy Corbyn colouring book), both of which mention his creation of the Eats, Shoots & Leaves book cover. Taking those into account, and some of the existing sources, I'd say that there's a reasonable argument for notability now. Were the article to be kept, there is probably some copyediting to be done and trimming of less stellar or redundant sources, e.g. Daily Mail, Worldcat; I didn't want to remove sources during AfD. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Reliable sources for the infomraton presenting in the article. Source assessment table below. WP:TOOSOON. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2893742/Insomnia-work-like-dream.html		Per WP:RSP	passing mention	✘ No
http://jamesnunn.co.uk/about/			primary source	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20201029112047/https://road.cc/content/news/208133-colouring-tour-de-france-coming-bookshop-near-you-next-month			churnalism	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20231120180859/https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-peoples-flag-needs-colouring-in		Per WP:RSP		✘ No
http://jamesnunn.co.uk/home/?covers			primary source	✘ No
https://search.worldcat.org/title/1127946427?oclcNum=1127946427			WorldCat listing proves the coloring book exists only	✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/dec/04/books-best-stocking-fillers-2015			listicle	✘ No
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41293-021-00185-5?fromPaywallRec=false	To build a new Jezrusalem: an historical institutionalist analysis of the origins of the Corbyn era in the Labour party		random article - no mention of James Nunn	✘ No
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/atticus-sorry-lady-grantham-but-you-are-splitting-heirs-pd3xzp3fg33	Atticus: Sorry, Lady Grantham, but you are splitting heirs		passing mention	✘ No
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3298264/Red-pencils-ready-Jeremy-Corbyn-COLOURING-BOOK-goes-sale-left-wing-publishing-enjoys-winter-content.html		Per WP:RSP	promotional review	✘ No
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/secret-gardens-vogue-and-jeremy-corbyn-2015s-best-colouring-book/			listicle	✘ No
https://www.thebookseller.com/rights/yellow-jersey-publish-tour-de-france-colouring-book-405901			publication notice in Bookseller magazine	✘ No
https://www.counterfire.org/article/after-the-eating-and-drinking-the-sporty/	A selection of 2017 sporting reads by Mark Perryman for the post-festive recovery period		listicle	✘ No
https://theartbuyer.co.uk/a-discussion-with-the-artist-james-nunn/			interview in the Art Buyer with link to sales area	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Abdul Majeed Al-Mosawi

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

Declined prod. 4 of the 5 sources are database/results listing. The other source merely confirms he authored a study and is not SIGCOV about Al-Mosawi. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Those wanting to keep should provide evidence of actual indepth sourcing and not just wave NEXIST. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I expanded the article just before it was nominated. Per comment, "It goes against our ethics on ADL for a nominator to dictate to the community which guidlines they should not invoke in their rationale/votes", and I don't think asking participants not to invoke any particular P&G is warranted.

I wasn't able to read the study because I don't know Arabic, but it's theoretically possible there's secondary SIGCOV of the subject within the PDF. Regardless, I think the WP:NEXIST case is strong because the subject had a years-long career as one of Kuwait's top sprinters per the info in WP:RS that we do have. We'd expect more coverage to be found in Kuwaiti newspaper archives when they're made available to us. --Habst (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kuwait at the 1980 Summer Olympics where everything there is to say about this non notable runner is already said. NEXIST argument is, once again, spurious, as has been repeatedly pointed out by AfD participants and closing admins. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, I have a lot of respect for your contributions. How is it spurious? Like most P&Gs, its application is subjective, and people can either agree or disagree with the rationale. It's fine to disagree, but for a nominator to dictate which guidelines are or are not allowed to be used in the AfD is not appropriate. --Habst (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way you use NEXIST to argue keep has not been accepted by other editors and admins in athlete AfDs. Clear consensus which multiple people have stressed to you. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No evidence of the required IRS SIGCOV. NEXIST is very explicit that sufficient sources must provably exist and that it is not appropriate to invoke once notability is challenged. JoelleJay (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sirfuboy. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, which mandates in clear language: "All sports biographies . . . must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Here, no such SIGCOV has been presented. A redirect preserves the article history, such that it can be restored if and when SIGCOV is found. The notion that there might be SIGCOV in Kuwaiti sources (despite posting one of the slowest times in the preliminaries and not advancing) in no way trumps the clear and mandatory language of prong 5 quoted above. Cbl62 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for all the reasons already given by previous contributors.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leonie Nichols

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

Declined prod. No coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blaire Fleming

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

Does not meet any of the five criteria in WP:NCOLLATH; notability is based primarily on being "outed" rather than actual athletic achievements. Furthermore, there are only two secondary sources cited, one article by ESPN in Nov. 2024 and New York Times Magazine in Apr. 2025. Thus, there isn't sufficient notability per WP:BASIC due to the person being notable for one event. Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Jose State Spartans women's volleyball per WP:BLP1E. (Me and @Yngvadottir: actually discussed Slusser at User talk:Launchballer/archive/2025/1401-1500#BLP / source concern.)--Laun chba ller 03:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Brooke Slusser would also now likely survive AfD on the strength and depth of the recent NYT article. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can create the article on Slusser if you feel it's notable, would likely have to go through AfC first though. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator) Way more sources are available than the two cited - this was a widely covered story: besides the (very strong) NYT article, there are CNN, AP, SF Chronicle, etc. I would still point to the NYT and ESPN stories as the strongest sources, which should be enough for BASIC. (WP:BLP1E does not apply as her role was substantial - and also there is no separate article for the event; that is a reasonable separate discussion to have.) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the CNN and AP sources do not name Fleming. Including the would be potentially original research. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that follows since she has gone public. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 05:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What happened with the 2024 San Jose State Spartans women's volleyball season is (IMO; I largely wrote the article) adequately covered there, and is a one-season news event. I'm not sure there should even be a redirect; there are huge privacy concerns and most news orgs not only did not name her during the season, they went out of their way to say they were not doing so because she had not self-identified as trans. San Jose State did not identify her as trans. (I originally cited a couple of sources that did name her within the article, but they were removed on source policy grounds.) I found almost nothing about her prior career; the April 20 New York Times article, although it has some information about her and is the major source of the new article, is also primarily about the team season. So it's BLP:1E with substantial BLPNOTPUBLIC concerns, and although it's better than could have been written up to April 20, there is still not enough published coverage of her, personally to outweigh these concerns or to demonstrate individual notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the measured answer. I think the Times story changes things a lot though. I'll note again that WP:BLP1E does not apply (only meets one of three needed prongs) and talking to the Times shows she is no longer keeping a low profile. Also note that WP:SIGCOV does not need to be the main topic of the source material, but even besides that, the seven paragraphs from "It was against this backdrop of expanding tolerance" to "She says she needn't have been" are substantial coverage not about the 2024 season. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 05:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Volleyball, California, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable athletic career, I'm not sure the transgender issue is notable. This would be akin to "outing" a gay person in the 1980s that wasn't otherwise notable; we don't really care what gender you are, you need to pass GNG or sporting notability. This person doesn't appear to have done so. I suppose there is a brief story to be told if the university's sports season is notable, coverage is more about the team than this person. Oaktree b (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to San Jose State Spartans women's volleyball, as this article's subject is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Per nom, the subject doesn't meet any of the criteria to be considered a WP:NCOLLATH.--DesiMoore (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCOLLATH says non-trivial media coverage is likely to exist if they have Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team. That is exactly what has happened here (enough to meet GNG as I explain above). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to San Jose State Spartans women's volleyball#2024 season. Doesn't appear notable outside of her outing. I understand the privacy concers with a redirect but a brief look at recent coverage does show her being mentioned by name so I imagine her name will be searched on Wikipedia anyway. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blaire Fleming is a notable and famous college athlete. Drcynthiatenientematson (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: I have blocked this account from editing until they can verify that they are Cynthia Teniente-Matson. I would caution anyone against making assumptions in either direction. I would also caution anyone (say, passing journalists) from misrepresenting this as Dr. Teniente-Matson (if that's who this is) being blocked for misconduct. Blocks in cases like this are to protect the person whose name is being used, not due to misconduct; this block will be lifted if the account does verify. (While there would be a conflict of interest issue in that case, it would not on its own rise to the level of an immediate block from editing.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree totally with Oaktree b. Also, if Drcynthiatenientematson is who they say they are on their user page, then they have an undeclared COI which should invalidate their keep vote. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The already existing coverage in Transgender people in sports and in San Jose State Spartans women's volleyball was already sufficient (before she was named). Should she become notable for a second event, like, for example, becoming an activist, that would obviously change my evaluation. For the time being she's described in the NYT article focused on the team's season as a "a middle-of-the-pack player" and as having been "a little-known college player" until others decided to try to make her notable. From WP:LPI : A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Model Context Protocol

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

This article consists of mostly machine-generated text, was not disclosed as being machine-generated when published by the page creator and there are multiple drafts for the same subject (Model Context Protocol, Model Context Protocol 1, Model Context Protocol (MCP)). LemurianPatriot (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. LemurianPatriot (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for the review. It's not perfect, but still the most in-depth version compared to the competing drafts and even more comprehensive than the Chinese counterpart of the same Wikipedia article on the Model Context Protocol: https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E6%A8%A1%E5%9E%8B%E4%B8%8A%E4%B8%8B%E6%96%87%E5%8D%8F%E8%AE%AE

It has reached a critical point of notability with OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google DeepMind's Gemini supporting it. Feel free to edit it to improve it! Canp (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe parts to rework or to delete, but please keep the article, since relevant and MCP has some momentum, see e.g. InfoQ (Professional Software Development) article https://www.infoq.com/news/2025/04/fastapi-mcp/. Mywikie (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's important that Wikipedia has a page for MCP since loads of people, including me, will be searching for info and LLMs aren't trained with data new enough. 80.221.185.118 (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with revisions) per Canp. The coverage/adoption in the past month ([78], [79]) is enough for this to be on Wikipedia somewhere; I can't think of a redirect target. Neutral or possibly supportive of a full swap with Draft:Model Context Protocol, which is less LLM-generated. 65.144.53.2 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep sorry I am not logged in. I am an old Wikipedia editor ( but on my phone). I came to Wikipedia specifically for an article about this topic which I am glad to read! This should not be merged with another article... This is a topic on its own ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.202.90.212 (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No support for deletion beyond nominator, but without P&G-based !votes this discussion thus far it would be good to hear from some AfD regulars.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Relatively new but quite significant development in machine learning. Plenty of good sources available. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there are many articles and blog pages, I purposly added wikipedia to my search term to day to find this page. while always ways to improve, I believe the topic is gaining traction and is important. Tharple ^Talk 18:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I love deleting articles for Wikipedia:TOOSOON, this is so obviously a notable topic and space that receives intense academic and press coverage. We're better off improving the article instead of deleting it and being back in the same place in a month. Brandon (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A new topic, but an important one.Jan Spousta (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2028 United States Senate election in Ohio

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

feels WP:TOOSOON since Vance was actually elected as VP, so all sources are basically about the 2026 election. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States Senate elections#Ohio. Far too soon to have an article for this election especially when we don't even know who the incumbent will be. Sources also just don't really exist for this election yet. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete as mentioned above. That election is not happening for 3-1/2 years. Too soon to even speculate who the candidates will be. — Maile (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON to know if the US will still have democratic elections in 2028.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per reasons above. Far too soon for an article to be written, especially when it’s candidateS haven’t been confirmed yet.

IiSmxyzXX (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table of polyhedron dihedral angles

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

Even though many sources support the angle of each polyhedron, I still have no clue what's the point of its existence. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Street

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

This is one of several very tiny side-street connecting two notable roads in Hong Kong. I have searched for WP:SIGCOV in English and Chinese and have not been able to do more than verify that it exists. The Chinese version of this article doesn't contain any further sources to help. I think we could mention it Queen's Road, Hong Kong#Queen's Road East but from what I can find there isn't a lot to add except that it's one of multiple small alley ways connecting two major roads. Zzz plant (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Balloon Publishing

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

Does not seem notable under organization guidelines WP:ORG 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 02:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 02:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Elizabeth Koch - the company has a lot of mentions (usually in parantheses, in book reviews and the like) but this[80] is the closest to I can find to WP:SIGCOV. I don't see any WP:GNG to suggest the company is notable independent of founder. Zzz plant (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - No mention of it on her page which surprises me. We can simply copy over that she is the founder and redirect this title. As far as notability, there is nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT so the Publishing house would not meet WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devlin Barnes

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only source in the article is primary and a BEFORE search only came up with coverage for an unrelated abductor with nothing significant about this subject available. Let'srun (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Health and fitness, Football, and Massachusetts. Let'srun (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EN 13445

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

Fails WP:GNG, little evidence of notability. Created in 2008 and barely touched since. GoldRomean (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ SL93 (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryosuke Nemoto

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

No significant coverage per WP:NATHLETE. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a look at the Japanese wiki page, however there are no real citations there, a few external links that don't really help. He has played a lot of games for Montedio Yamagata who I would like a medium sized club in Japan with a fair-ish fan base. But the language barrier doesn't help in searching for sources. Could be classed as important player for the club, but I am unsure because of the language barrier. I believe he is notable for Japanese wikipedia but not the English version. That would be my opinion. Regards. Govvy (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this on JP news. Hochi News (Though part of this is a transcript of an interview but still has a significant analysis). FNN article. Gekisaka. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is likely enough. SL93 (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. Nemoto is a one-club player for Montedio Yamagata and played 224 games for them. There must be coverage of him out there. If he had only played 3 games for them and retired after one season, I would say delete, but this is an important player for the club. RossEvans19 (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Highlands Pier

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

I can't find any proof that this pier was actually built, much less that it meets GNG. As of this version:

Sources 1 and 2 establish that Flemm applied to build the pier, but not that it was actually built. (The claim in the article that the Army Corps built the pier is a misinterpretation of these sources.)
Source 3 is about a completely different pier over a mile away from the location described in sources 1 and 2
Source 4 is a municipal code listing that does not mention this specific pier at all.
Sources 5 and 6 are general tourist information sites that do not mention this specific pier at all.

Even if the pier was built, it seems unlikely that it would pass GNG. There are dozens of similar piers on this river. A BEFORE search fails to find any significant coverage - or indeed any coverage but sources 1 and 2 - about this pier. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are some old ferry advertisements mentioning an "Atlantic Highlands Pier" in NJ but it seems like it's referring to a pier that existed by the 1920s[81](p.140) so that doesn't even match up with the building date in the article. Zzz plant (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO PI! I met you about late summer of 2023, just a short time after I started editing here! You were fantastic, told me you were passionate about help files and to ping you if I needed help, but I didn't even know what that was or how to find you again, haha! Anyway...

Delete. Is this "amusement park pier" the one in your link? Maybe this is it too. This detailed description predates what we want, I'm guessing... I'm with you. I'm betting his pier never got built. Historic aerial photos south of the bridge in the decades after the 1940s don't show anything like an amusement pier.

Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electrum (software)

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

The subject fails to meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is not demonstrated. The only references are a couple of wallet reviews and technical mentions which may be insufficient per [WP:GNG] and [WP:ORGCRITE]. In particular, there is little to no coverage in mainstream media beyond routine crypto-sector coverage. Per [WP:NONCRYPTO], sources solely from cryptocurrency-focused outlets or passing mentions cannot establish notability Pollia (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Pollia (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the history of the article. The article already was nominated for deletion and after discussion it was agreed to keep it. Then someone simply removed almost everything from the article. This is an important software in the cryptocurrencies area. Stokito (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Electrum is widely used in the cryptocurrency community, but popularity alone does not establish notability on Wikipedia. As outlined in WP:GNG, notability requires significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. While the article was previously kept, the current content and references do not demonstrate the kind of in-depth, independent coverage required for inclusion. If there are reliable, independent sources from the prior discussion that meet these standards, they should be reintroduced and clearly cited. Without such sources, the article does not meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability. Pollia (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pollia what is [WP:NONCRYPTO] supposed to represent here? There is no policy/essay/guideline under WP:NONCRYPTO and although there are some discussions about reliability of certain outlets there isn't PAG (to my knowledge) that says all cryptocurrency-focused outlets are not accepted for notability. Oblivy (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I was referring to WP:NONCRYPTO, which is an accepted guideline discussing how cryptocurrency-related articles should be held to the same notability standards as any other topic. It’s true there is no policy excluding all cryptocurrency-focused outlets, but the guideline emphasizes that they must meet WP:RS standards and demonstrate significant, independent coverage. If you feel the article’s sources meet these criteria, we should carefully examine them. However, at this time, the sources provided don’t seem to establish notability under these guidelines. Pollia (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources already present in the article are sufficient to show notability, along with additional sources discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrum Bitcoin Wallet. In-depth reviews in mainstream publications are not "routine coverage". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the current sources demonstrate notability, could you identify which specific references meet WP:GNG by providing significant, independent coverage? The article presently relies heavily on niche or cryptocurrency-focused outlets that do not appear to meet the standards of WP:RS. Without additional coverage in more widely recognized, independent publications, it’s difficult to argue that the topic is notable under Wikipedia’s guidelines. Pollia (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Techradar review and Money.com review are reliable, mainstream publications with in-depth coverage. Although not in the article, additional sources were highlighted at the last AfD, particularly SmartSE's comment. All of the sources in that comment except for Business Insider are generally reliable, and none of the sources are "crypto-focused" publications. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note It seems that the renaming of this article may have been an attempt to better align the title with Wikipedia’s guidelines on naming conventions. However, while the new title might reflect more common usage or improved clarity, it’s important to ensure that the content of the article and its sources meet Wikipedia’s core policies, such as WP:GNG and WP:RS. Pollia (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm apprehensive as to the reliability of "Money.com" (Yes, it's owned by Time, but News Corp owns both Wall Street Journal and Fox News), but the previous discussions's sources convinced me. There are peer-reviewed academic reviews on the security of the subject. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting for further input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edge Spectrum

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

Article about an American station group that is more of a shell game using the public broadcast spectrum for some unknown purpose than as a functioning broadcaster; most of their existence seems to be acquiring low-power television licenses then doing very little with them (allegedly to be ready for the ATSC 3.0 standard, though I've seen this company pull the same racket since 2019).

Although they do have stations on the air, most of them with religious networks or the lowest-tier shopping and entertainment subchannel networks to technically exist, they have many more stations that are only licensed and seem to be in a permanent state of tolling/power modifications at the FCC where they do just enough to not lose said licenses or actually have to build a tower or transmitter.

Very few sources for this company exist outside of FCC notes (and a fine for not renewing licenses in time), along with broadcasting blogs running down endless 'Edge Spectrum (calls of stations) has submitted a new tolling request/power reduction' line items to the point that it's a shock when they do put a station on the air.

The group's template was recently deleted (it was mostly redlinks for stations which have never come to the air which looked even more absurd earlier this month; a template for nothing), and this article should meet the same fate as this company has no designs on actually broadcasting or elaborating on their business model. Nathannah • 📮 00:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.- Iban14mxl (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greco-Persian Wars

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

This article is problematic because it deviates from Roman-Persian Wars and Seleucid-Parthian Wars Iranian112 (talk)

Could you elaborate a tad bit more, this is kind of vague. What do you mean deviates? Gaismagorm (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Lists, and Greece. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page deviates from Greco-Persian Wars and mentions the Seleucid–Parthian Wars and Byzantine-Sassanian wars, which are not part of the Greco-Persian Wars Iranian112 (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this refers to the wars of the Greek states against the Persian states Rxsxuis (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they aren't, we don't need to delete the whole article, we just need to fix it. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water and all that. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But if we remove Seleucid–Parthian Wars Byzantine and Byzantine-Sassanian wars from the article, a total of 5 war remain, and there is no need for this page at all. Iranian112 (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it better to redirect to Greco-Persian Wars. Iranian112 (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This list covers the period of all wars between the Greek and Persian states. There is no reason to remove the Seleucids and Byzantium from it. Rxsxuis (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Byzantine-Sassanian Wars should be listed as conflicts between the Persians and Romans, not the Persian-Greek Wars. Iranian112 (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And there is no need to create a list for the conflict between two ethnic groups. Iranian112 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]