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

The result was keep‎. Participants agree the topic meets WP:GNG. No prejudice against initiating a merge discussion. asilvering (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Class Scout (Boy Scouts of America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Individual articles for each rank make the Ranks in Scouts BSA page obsolete. Additionally, first class, unlike Eagle, has objectively not received significant coverage from sources other than Scouting America. In fact, the only sources for the article are the scout handbook and the rank requirements. While it meets notability, all information is covered in the Ranks in Scouts BSA page. Etaylor128 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Scouting. Shellwood (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to Ranks in Scouts BSA as this is barely longer than the corresponding section. Mangoe (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, any additional information from this page can be merged into Ranks in Scouts BSA. Yes, the ranks meet GNG, and yes, first class is the highest of the first four ranks. But while each rank is notable, there isn’t sufficient information for them to each warrant separate articles (with the exception of Eagle, which has a uniquely detailed history and information). Etaylor128 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: mostly because I contest ETaylor's claim about significant coverage. All of the Boy Scout ranks comfortably pass GNG. And if you keep just two, after Eagle, the second one should be First Class, as Tenderfoot and Second Class build to First Class, while Star and Life build to Eagle. _pbp 01:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Purplebackpack89 (saw the notice on their talk page), meets GNG, and the notability of the topic. All American scouts are aware of this rank, and this long-term stand-alone page serves the topic well. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree it is well known within scouting, but a brief history and significance section does not justify a separate article. I also agree that if any rank deserves a separate page it is First Class. But it is the only Scouting America rank (other than the highest in each program) with its own page. It seems the excellent contributions that have been made would be better placed in the Ranks in Scouts BSA article. Etaylor128 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 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.

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 redirect‎ to Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres. If those presumed sources are found in the future, we can spin this back out. asilvering (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Eliminated in 1st round of heats. LibStar (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  delete. fails all criteria for WP:NTRACK and google search brought up only one source: 1, that does not even have any significant coverage of him. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 23:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the Arabic name for this subject is محمد سراج تميم, and I'm seeing multiple Google hits for that name. Subject was the Lebanese national 100 m record-holder (aka "the fastest person in Lebanon") in the post-Internet age, so I'd be very surprised if there wasn't coverage. See for example this BBC Arabic article where the subject is profiled: [1] --Habst (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. 201.226.200.41 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the BBC Arabic coverage, which makes the article pass SPORTCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. --Habst (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is not relevant in the sports field. 190.219.102.54 (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that this IP has been blocked for block evasion. --Habst (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres as a valid ATD if more sources are not found. --Enos733 (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Another source: "اليوم الاتحادي بالقوى: تميم يعادل رقمه في ال100 م" [Federal Day in Power: Tamim equals his record in the 100m]. As-Safir (in Arabic). Adds important context that Tamim was a national record-breaker in 2003. I think there should be more from the same paper, so I am feeling more confident about the keep view now. --Habst (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, based on the sources presented by Habst. Searching his name in Arabic gives a couple other short articles as well. I think one could write an WP:NBASIC-compliant article with what's available, not to mention there's a good chance that if we looked at Lebanese newspapers from the time (not all are archived) we'd very likely find more. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that two of the three "delete" comments are sockpuppets and should be discounted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. The BBC Arabic article has maybe two sentences of coverage, with everything else being in quotes. Nowhere near SIGCOV. The Federal Day in Power source has one sentence on him, that is trivial. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Invoking WP:BASIC to combine the sources, that means we have at least three sentences on the subject, enough for a paragraph not including any future coverage found which almost certainly exists. I think that's barely enough to constitute SIGCOV still. --Habst (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Trivial sources do not count towards BASIC, and the article is still required to cite a source of SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BASIC says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Because both of the provided sources are independent and non-trivial (subject is a primary focus of the article), it's a valid application. --Habst (talk) 21:17, 3 March 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.

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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I redirected based on there being only a database source. This was undone, and a new source (this book) was added. That book comes from an author and publisher who do not seem to be notable as I can barely find any info on either, and the book itself appears to be full of reprinted comics and no valuable prose. There's also little to suggest notability of this subject, nor the few bluelinked strips listed here. This appears to be a subject of very niche interest, and probably not something that would've gotten a ton of coverage. I would stick with the redirect to The Topper (comics). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United Kingdom. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a short running comic (not even 2 years starting in 1973) but it was being reprinted (and advertised on the front cover) as part of Classic of the Comics up until 2010. That's near 40 (not continuous) years as part of national publications. I know the source I added isnt the best but its more than just reprinted comics, its a complete index of the Topper comic that Buzz merged into. I'm going to have a look for more sources. Eopsid (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more sources, I think there are more out there in other books. Eopsid (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kibble-White's Ultimate Book of British Comics has something like 4 pages on it, Gifford's Character Encyclopedia probably covers half-a-dozen plus strips (with his two catalogues possibly good for the odd cite), it might be covered in Cadogan's DCT book (been a while since I read that one) and all of this is without bothering to look at any specialist magazines - Crikey! almost certainly ran at least one article on it. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if it absolutely has to be redirected somewhere because people don't like comics, the list of DC Thomson publications makes a lot more sense than to The Topper, which is just confusing. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Topper seems like a fine target to me since Buzz was merged into it, and that merger is mentioned in The Topper's lead. List of D. C. Thomson & Co. Ltd publications only mentions the name and years of publication, so it's less valuable in terms of how much information is supplied. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 25 February 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Central New York Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This was the only piece of independent coverage I was able to find of this college soccer tournament. JTtheOG (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, California, New Jersey, and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't find any coverage to meet WP:GNG and it is hard to imagine a college soccer tournament in the United States would receive significant coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – "apparently a soccer/football event", I believe this sentence already says everything that is necessary... Svartner (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Esolo5002, fails WP:GNG – RossEvans19 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination --Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not importnt and properly sourced event, no RS. Cinder painter (talk) 22:17, 4 March 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails notability, he won some medals in amateur non-notable competitions. his biggest achievement is a bronze in Asian Indoor Martial Arts Games which is not much notable itself. googling his name in English doesn't give much about him. Sports2021 (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Fails athlete notability and reads like a vanity page. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NKICK and doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Papaursa (talk) 17:31, 2 March 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Quite the same rationale as of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Siege of Samarkhel: The article is possibly a WP:HOAX, with no sign of independent significant coverage and only passing mentions: The Mujahideen managed to seize Samarkhel village east of Jalalabad in the sources. Also it look likes it's a WP:SAMETYPEFORK. – Garuda ^Talk! 23:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Terrorism, Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America. – Garuda ^Talk! 23:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The Siege of Samarkhel is the original article before someone made the “First Siege of Samarkhel” article. They deleted the entire article to make it but I luckily reverted it. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources that mention the fighting in Samarkhel:

https://www.rebellionresearch.com/what-happened-in-the-battle-of-jalalabad

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/13/world/jalalabad-shows-its-recovery-as-siege-by-rebels-dwindles.html

However, this “siege” was part of the Battle of Jalalabad but I did not make this article. I don’t know whose idea was it to call it a “siege”. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the seige, one of the sources only mentions that Samarkhel was seized ^[1]. Even if a seige did take place, it isn't notable enough for a standalone article. AlvaKedak (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Timtim76 (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable. Per nomination. Rubik's Cube 3x3 20:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This would seem like a slam-dunk deletion but two editors who argued for Deletion are very inexperienced which makes me wonder how they turned up at this AFD. This situation causes me to relist this discussion to get more feedback from our experienced AFD regulars.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Going through the 14 sources currently on the article as I write this.

- [2] Appears to be LLM/AI generated based on the website, lack of sources, and lack of author. It also fails to mention a seige of Samarkhil (note the spelling difference) but does mention that the village was part of the defenses of Jalalabad (if we can trust what it says).

- [3] A reliable source about the Battle/Siege of Jalalabad that does mention Samarkhel in passing but it doesn't appear that there was any significant siege of that location.

- [4] Another reliable source talking about the siege of Jalalabad, no mention of Samarkhel.

- [5] Page 45 as the citation claims is about the year 1000 CE, so it is only 980 or so years off. The book does mention Jalalabad (unsure of full context though) with only a brief mention of Samarkhel.

- [6] Another solid looking book that mentions Samarkhel as a location but nothing about a siege.

- [7] same source as number [2]

- [8] no mention of Samarkhil or Samarkhel, only 2 results for Jalalabad.

- [9] This mentions Samarkhel as a frontline, but in the battle of Jalalabad, not its own siege.

- [10] Same source as [4], this time the page marked is the singular mention of Samakhel, but again it appears to be a brief mention, not its own topic.

- [11] mentions Samarkhel (Mountain) purely in relation to being near Jalalabad.

- [12] Unfortunately Google books doesn't have Search Inside for this one so No Comment.

- [13] Same as [1], just as bad now as it was then.

- [14] Someone with military history training might tell me if this is important? but as far as I can tell it just talks about Jalalabad.

- [15] Same as [8]

Overall I think this article was mistakenly created from the Siege/Battle of Jalalabad article and should be deleted. It doesn't appear as if there was any actual siege that occurred for this to even be worthy of a redirect to the main page instead. Moritoriko (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The sources provided only mention Samarkhel in passing as part of the Battle of Jalalabad, not as a separate siege, violating WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, the article appears to be a WP:SAMETYPEFORK of the broader battle. NXcrypto Message 20:28, 1 March 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.

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 no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NBAND as there are no in-depth sources describing the career of the band. They had a few chart hits but very little was written about them. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Some hits in newspapers, but for the Big Band fad in the late 90s and "In the Mood", nothing about this group. One source in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have identified and added citations from three WP:RS sources: a short EP review in Billboard [16], a review in Trouser Press [17], and confirmation of the UK charting [18]. Smash Hits also devoted half a page to reproducing the lyrics on one of the Moods' songs in 1982: [19]. Nothing further found yet; but I rather suspect there will be further sources offline in UK music publications not available/not yet digitised. ResonantDis_tortion 22:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this group meets WP:MUSICBIO#2 on three confirmed occasions in the UK Official Charts, and there is confirmed critical coverage in the US music press. As this is a UK group, I think it is a fair presumption that the UK music press will have covered the group back in the early 1980s. (Note there are examples of recent online coverage here and here, but these appear to be a tad bloggy in nature). ResonantDis_tortion 20:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tidy up / improve!. I see national chart hits x 3 Here.

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.

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unclear notability - sources seem to be not independent (for example by the subject) or not significant. Nominated for deletion before, but the article was kept because it was claimed the subject was a member of parliament, which was based on an edit by the author of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denys_Myrgorodskyi&diff=prev&oldid=1249919296 but not supported by the source. Not included in http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/site2/p_deputat_list?skl=9 or List of members of the parliament of Ukraine, 2014–2019. Peter James (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The person held a top government enterprise position during wartime (received good coverage for his role and activities). In addition he seems to be a notable and well-cited by the national press lawyer, recognized as one of the top-ranking in Ukraine. --LusikSnusik (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found that the person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:GNG) as the former director of Gas Distribution Networks of Ukraine (2022–2023), which manages 70% of the country's gas networks. I also found new sources, including Forbes Magazine [20] and Ukrnews [21], where the subject received significant media coverage, including criticism of his legal background and concerns over Naftogaz’s management capabilities (Ukrnews). For example, UkrNews highlighted skepticism about his appointment, providing a deep analysis of the person's background, as he had no prior experience in the energy sector and had previously been involved in legal cases related to financial investigations. This included representing the owners of a bank linked to money laundering allegations and being (allegedly) associated with a financial conversion center investigated by the Security Service of Ukraine. While the other source cover well his role in restructuring Ukraine’s gas sector during wartime.Villkomoses (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP HEY and additional sources found, such as this Cyrillic one [22] with critical overview of the subject, allowing to meet GNG. Cinder painter (talk) 22:24, 4 March 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of fire departments in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is an entirely unsourced page whose material is best served by being added to the specific localities of those departments, or at the very least, to a statewide page. It is also an orphan. I was surprised to see it, given that I thought that the statewide fire department pages were already in bad shape. Bringing here because page creator (understandably) disagreed with PROD. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 21:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 21:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Every town has a fire department, I don't really see why we need a list of them. You can just type in XYZ Fire Department with the name of any random city and there's the article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It only list the ones that have their own Wikipedia article. Just like most lists do. Dream Focus 22:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Valid navigational list. You don't need a reference when you can see "fire department" in the name and a link to the article for that fire department. Some states have their own articles, but most don't, so everything is just put here. There were originally more smaller lists for this by state or territory, but I merged that information here, and those were all deleted. Dream Focus 22:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We have Category:Fire departments of the United States by state, which may, perhaps, serve the same navigational purpose. I'm not quite ready to say "delete", but I do think this raises issues of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: agree with Tryptofish above. Category is already there, which provides content just like what this article is. Asteramellus (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I got curious so I looked at every article in that category. They're all in pretty rough shape. Only Pennsylvania has a decent amount of citations, and List of New York fire departments in particular is a real doozy. I think if someone really likes fire departments and they want a task to do, updating List of fire departments in the United States and redirecting all the other pages to it might be the way to go. MediaKyle (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've followed what other editors have said after I posted my earlier comment, and I'm landing here. I no longer feel that there is any sufficient navigational value that is not already met by the category. And I've been trying to think through whether there might be some sort of encyclopedic topic that unites the entries on the list page, other than that they are all fire departments in the US – something like a recurrent theme about US fire departments that sources have noted, aside from the simple fact that they exist. And I don't think there is such a thing, which essentially makes this violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 3 March 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Couldn't find significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. No indication of notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Lack of sources, impossible do WP:V. Svartner (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Hasn't played enough to have enough written about her. Fails WP:GNG – RossEvans19 (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – The subject does not have any news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment She is among the league top scorer according to 2024 Thai Women's League 1#Top scorers in country top-level women soccer. (Slightly different spelling is used there) According to this news [23], she had a scoring attempt at 87 minute mark for Thailand National Team against Uzbekistan on 26 February 2025 in 2025 Pink Ladies Cup. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We could redirect her to Thailand women's national football team, as she's played for the national team [24]. RossEvans19 (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:26, 26 February 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.

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. The nominator is blocked for sockpuppetry and there is no support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:TVSHOW) due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Most sources are trivial, promotional, or affiliated, failing to establish lasting notability. Per WP:NOT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:V, this does not merit inclusion and should be deleted. The page was also deleted previously and the logs are here. Sackiii (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Sackiii (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a WP:CREATIVE pass as screenwriter of at least three notable films Joseph (2018), Nayattu (2021) and Officer on Duty (2025) and a WP:DIRECTOR pass with Ela Veezha Poonchira (2022). Plus meets WP:ANYBIO with the award he received for that film. -Mushy Yank. 22:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does WP:TVSHOW have to do with a screenwriter/director? It's about TV productions not about people. -Mushy Yank. 23:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage? https://variety.com/2025/film/news/junglee-malayalam-ronth-1236316189/ https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/kerala-state-film-awards-shahi-kabirs-journey-from-the-police-department-to-an-award-winning-debut/article67106498.ece https://www.onmanorama.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/2021/09/29/shahi-kabir-turns-director-with-ila-veezha-poonchira.html https://www.cinemaexpress.com/malayalam/interviews/2023/Mar/29/shahi-kabir-the-artist-behind-the-khaki-41707.html https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/scenarist-shahi-kabir-on-his-debut-film-joseph/article25632503.ece https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/malayalam/2022/Jul/14/after-nayattu-shahi-kabir-returns-to-ila-veezha-poonchira-2476192.html etc, etc, etc.-Mushy Yank. 23:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The director has won notable awards and satisfies the first criterion of ANYBIO: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes Wp:GNG and wp:FILMMAKER. Zuck28 (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The nominator is blocked now and the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NFILMMAKER. Taabii (talk) 10:26, 4 March 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2029 British & Irish Lions tour to New Zealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:Rumour, all sources are discussing something that might happen in Las Vegas. The tour in 2029 has not been confirmed by the British and Irish Lions. If the tour were to happen there is no evidence it will take place in New Zealand this suggestion of this is based on historical trends. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, Ireland, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and United States of America. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No definite information about this event, only speculation. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No confirmation that this tour will even happen yet. Let's let the Lions announce it, which probably won't be until around the time of the Australia tour this summer. – PeeJay 13:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Only speculation that this event might happen four years from now. Certainly WP:TOOSOON for an article, probably too soon for a draft too. Frank Anchor 16:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as based entirely on speculation, with no official confirmation from the British & Irish Lions. Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL, there is no verifiable information to support the existence of this event, making the article premature. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't for unconfirmed rumours Traumnovelle (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough relialbe coverage as of now, WP TOOSOON; WP Rumour. Highly likey that the tour won't even happen. --Cinder painter (talk) 09:47, 4 March 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.

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

The result was keep‎. per WP HEY, and strong keep arguments providing new sources, better general context and notabilty (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Tagged for sourcing issues since 2010. Only source is an interview with the playwright which lacks independence from the subject. No details on any notable productions or critical commentary. Not clear this play passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I found reviews in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Also reviews of the 2014 production here, here, here. Maybe some sigcov here, hard to say. This seems to be a paper analyzing the play. I think that's clear GNG. On top of that, the 2011 film adaptation (which has its own article) got a ton of reviews (i.e. here, here, here and here), many of which probably talk a bit about the play. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Eddie891. Thanks! -Mushy Yank. 23:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verging on speedy. Yes it's a terrible article but it can be edited. Judge the notability of the subject by the actual notability of the subject, not by the current state of the article. Even if not notable this could be redirected or merged to the film adaptation article so no reason for deletion. As for this play, at its first run in 1999 it was covered by Ben Holgate in the Australian and by Debra Jopson, Joyce Morgan and Bryce Hallett in the Sydney Morning Herald. When it went to Melbourne the next year Helen Thomson reviewed it in The Age. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the text of some of these and will update the page. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:55, 26 February 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.

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 merge‎ to List of Marvel Comics characters: L#Luna Snow. asilvering (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

So after discovering this article, I wanted to do a hard dive into sources on it. However, upon digging...there's really next to nothing. Several articles are addressing the fact people thought she was a new character in Marvel Rivals, but they are carbon copies of one another: explaining the character's origin and usage, with no reception or discussion about her as a character itself. This article from Polygon felt like the strongest source, and what got my interest piqued to check for more, but even it barely discusses her, and is more about Iron Fist's redesign and Rivals.

Scholar also turned up nothing. She's a character in a vacuum, and while I'd rather be proven wrong I just can't find anything through a thorough WP:BEFORE to indicate she's notable. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Comics and animation. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no immediate comment on deletion yet, but I am opening the possibility of a list of Marvel Rivals characters (comparable to the Overwatch one) given that they have spoken about including less well-known characters from the Marvel cannon, where notability outside of the game is unlikely. Most of the heroes in Rivals are notable before the game (even Jeff) but I am sure we'll see more. — Masem (t) 16:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if a list is really necessary compared to a table in the game's article for now, but once the cast grows I could see it as a good idea to do such a list.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that there is enough coverage of heroes as in the game to do a list with two paragraphs for each, one briefly summarizing the Canon of the character, and a second to cover their skill kit, as is done for the Overwatch ones. Judging by how the new heroes have been covered. This would also recent excessive game details on the individual char articles. But still thinking this through. — Masem (t) 20:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep [25] [26] [27] [28] (game guides can still qualify as SIGCOV as long as the article itself is not) as well as the other sources shown in the article, make me feel like this character is probably notable on her own. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is sufficient coverage such as MSN, DEXERTO, Kotaku, Polygon, TechRadar etc. Drushrush (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source is useless, it's a short note about fans of a niche game being upset about a price of a cosmetic item featuring her. It has nothing to do with her outside her being part of the said cosmetic. Second source is a bit longer but again, it focuses on mechanics of her character in a game, it's mostly useless for us. Third is more reliable and longer but it is still about her video game character in that particular game. Fourth is again about the game, but it is reliable and it goes beyond mechanics to discuss some cultural stuff. Fifth is a review of the cosmetic. Sigh. I am sorry, but those sources are not about Luna Snow, they are about Luna Snow (Marvel Rivals character). If this is all we have, then sadly, we cannot warrant keeping an article on her, but we could write up an article on the video game version of her character. Weird, I know... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: as per 4 sources above. AgerJoy talk 18:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Drushrush: @Zxcvbnm: @AgerJoy: While gameguide material can be used to establish character notability, it still needs to assert some importance outside of the game itself i.e. players being attacked for using Symmetra in Overwatch for how poor hers was or outright using her a troll pick to frustrate players. None of that is indicated here. There is also next to no discussion of the character as a fictional character outside of the Polygon article above, which is what we should be aiming for first and foremost. One needs to consider what the sources are saying for WP:SIGCOV, not that they simply exist.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I do my best to look for any angle to justify an article's creation, but here, I find it uncompelling that all the sources are a combination of game guide discussion and/or offer limited commentary. I don't think it's a weak article situation, I've seen worse, but I would be more comfortable if there were stronger articles to cite. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (and/or merge) per my analysis of sources above. What we have is mostly about video game character, not about the comic book character... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep – The deletion rationale does not account for Luna Snow’s broader multimedia presence, which establishes her notability beyond just Marvel Rivals. She is a playable character in five different video games (Marvel Future Fight, Marvel Super War, Marvel Snap, Marvel Puzzle Quest, Marvel Rivals), has appeared in the new animated series Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, and has released more than five officially licensed songs. Additionally, Luna Snow is one of the very few Korean superheroes in Marvel Comics, making her significant in terms of representation and diversity. Existing references in the article already discuss this aspect, further reinforcing her significance beyond her video game appearances. Furthermore, per WP:NFICTION, fictional characters can be considered notable if they have substantial independent coverage outside of plot summaries. While much of the current discussion focuses on game-related sources, her presence across multiple mediums suggests that she has had lasting impact. Additional coverage should be incorporated rather than outright deletion. If necessary, the article should be improved rather than removed. – Pokedigi (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pokedigi: While I get that, even looking up those alternate media outlets doesn't seem to provide any commentary on her as a character in terms of WP:SIGCOV. We need actual sources proving that she is discussed in secondary reliable sources, not that she simply exists. Otherwise you're basically arguing "sources must exist", no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The article currently contains over 50 references. Are you suggesting that none of them provide the level of reliability or depth required to justify its existence? If there are concerns about specific sources, they should be evaluated and, if necessary, removed or replaced rather than using their perceived weakness as grounds for deletion. It's unusual to see an article with this many citations flagged for deletion rather than improved. Pokedigi (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Having a large number of citations does not by itself make an article notable or worthy of being separate from a main topic. To demonstrate why:

    1. Number of primary sources: 35
    2. Number of routine sources: 35

    In total, the article uses 80 sources, 70 of which are either routine coverage of announcements related to the character or primary sources. So, a total of 10 sources, and even then, I was pretty conservative with calling sources "routine." For instance, "Marvel Rivals: Who is Luna Snow?" many would consider this routine coverage, same with "Who is Luna Snow in Marvel? Powers, origins, and more explained." If we eliminated such articles that just give an explanation of the character, we're down to 7. Now, let's examine these 7 sources:

    1. An actually interesting piece titled "A Spider-Verse Hero's Friendship Shows the Importance of New Perspectives"
    2. A review of Marvel's Voices that expresses excitement about her appearing
    3. An article about the team she belongs to that doesn't talk about her in any significant way
    4. An article listing pop stars who should be in the MCU, with Luna only given mild coverage
    5. An article including a passing mention of a cameo in Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man
    6. Another article including a passing mention of a cameo in Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man
    7. A brief mention by Luna of enjoying voicing the character

    Of these sources, I would say that only one talks about her in any significant depth, the first one, while the others provide minimal coverage, except for the review of Marvel's Voices, which lands somewhere in between.

    Simply put, this is why having a large number of sources tells us nothing about a subject's notability. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a second-stringer character to be sure but per earlier comments there is sufficient coverage in secondary sources to meet NOTE. Morgan695 (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you identify what you think the three strongest sources are, either in the article or linked in the AfD? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge/redirect supporters are rebutting the sources in the article and offered by the keeps, and while there are more "keeps" than !votes for other outcomes I wouldn't call it a consensus yet. Perhaps a source assessment would be beneficial for other editors?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the claims of the other users who voted keep. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I feel I need to stress again that this isn't a vote; the issue hasn't changed that none of the sources presented offer any commentary on the character to satisfy WP:SIGCOV or even WP:THREE. It's a lot of sources verifying she exists, but nothing offering commentary. At most we have some development information, but that can fit into a list entry.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. I haven't weighed in or done my research yet, but reviewing the discussion thus far, they keep !votes should be reminded of WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:NOTAVOTE. If they don't, the closing admin certainly will... Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: L#Luna Snow. Most logical merge target given the subject matter. As for the sourcing, nothing above is showing that this meets WP:GNG, given it's primarily WP:ROUTINE coverage or very oddly specific coverage that really doesn't show the character's impact in the real world. There may be potential for future recreation given Rivals' popularity, but as of now the coverage isn't here, and we aren't a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: L#Luna Snow per Piotrus and source analysis above. I don't see this article passes WP:GNG at all. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 09:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: L. I looked through Google Books, Google Scholar, and Internet Archive, and they only have passing mentions. She doesn't seem to be notable independently of Marvel Rivals. This is one I'd be interested in writing if there were ever significant coverage, but that's years away. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zxcvbnm and Drushrush. Christian75 (talk) 20:16, 4 March 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

None of the sources cover the term in depth. Anything in this article that's not already in Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud could be moved into it. – MW_(t•c) 17:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. – MW_(t•c) 17:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - in agreement with the nominator. Just because some sources grouped those three rappers together to talk about their beefs with each other, that does not mean that "The Big Three" is an encyclopedic term with its own definitional value. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If one of the sources talks about various Big Three since 2010 that aren't these people, we don't have notability. This could perhaps be a subject of the big three rappers in any particular year, but not limited to this trio. Otherwise this is a rehasing of various "feuds" for which we already have articles. This almost reads as a made-up attempt at a "feud", simply to sell music. Oaktree b (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with points made above. I was going to send this to AfD myself, but instead put a notability tag on it (which has since been removed). Based off the sources in the article and the sources I searched for myself, the topic is not individually notable, and if it is, I doubt it would only be limited to these three people. CorrectionsJackal (correct me) 08:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Oaktree b, this is redundant with the Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud in describing J. Cole's Oct 2023 claim to a "big three" that went on to be challenged by Lamar. As the article itself admits, when Lamar listed the top rappers on "Control" (2013), he did not refer to this specific trio. While I would never cite a Reddit data analysis in an article, I'm including one here as supplementary evidence that no metric ranks J. Cole even among the top five rappers of the 2010s (link). ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 16:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: First mention of the term seems to be an offhand line in First Person Shooter. Every other mention of the term online seems to either reference this or Kendrick's rebuttal in Like That. As far as I'm aware, this is not an independent topic from Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud. TansoShoshen (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all covered in the page for the Drake-Kendrick feud, + who else other than Drake says these are the big three? There would need to be multiple academic sources citing them as such, which there simply aren't. I can argue that, say, Nicki Minaj should be part of this Big 3 for her accomplishments in music. Or Cardi B. Or Kanye West... there is not a wide conensus that these three figures are the "Big 3". jolielover♥talk 08:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with Oaktree b. Drushrush (talk) 17:40, 4 March 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG; lacks significant, independent coverage, with sources focusing on Aptech Africa rather than establishing Abraham’s personal notability. Lulakayd (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – it is purely promotional and a COI. Phrases like Ghirmay's entrepreneurial journey has earned him recognitions such as a Top 10 finalist in the 2021 Africa's Business Heroes (ABH) competition, an initiative by the Jack Ma Foundation speak for themselves. I took the courtesy of removing unsupported claims. All sources are either interviews, broad coverage of the company, or insignificant award mentions. --95.158.184.104 (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @LibStar I noticed you are active on new pages; this page might be interesting to you 109.121.153.129 (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, I noticed that your IP have not edited other pages, could you clarify if you have a registered account? Your editing pattern raises concerns about possible sockpuppetry. Also, note that this page was nominated by a user whose good faith is currently under discussion. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' the article lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources or if it relies primarily on promotional content, self-published material, or local news outlets with limited impact --Loewstisch (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As noted at AN/I, I would have supported a speedy keep given the transparently disruptive nomination, but now that Loewstisch has offered a good-faith delete !vote that option is off the table. Evaluating the sources, I see The BBC piece is a profile of the company, not the subject of the article. Other sources are Q&A interviews ([29], trivial mentions ([30], [31], [32]), and a press release ([33]). This Quartz piece (reposted here) is as close as we get to WP:GNG-qualifying WP:SIGCOV, but we'd need to see more. However, given the disruptive activities of the nominator, I would urge the closer to weigh the nomination and IP !votes lightly. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The subject has a great career ahead of them, surely. But not English-Wikipedia-notable at this time. Fails WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:22, 1 March 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotional, not relialbe sources, the person fails WP GNG. Redirect to Taurus Musik is not the bad option. Lulakayd (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Another X under X entrepreneur that fails WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Source include clearly unreliable ones, interestingly ridiculous piece from WP:MREL , Vanguard, and so on. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly, the nomination was made as part of a possible disruptive edit, and secondly, I disagree with you. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi 24eeWikiUser, you don’t just disagree with a user for the sake of it. You need to state your reasons and it’s all bad to assume that the nomination was made in bad faith without stating why. We are trying to reach a consensus here. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi@Reading Beans, Thank you. I wasn’t dismissing concerns but highlighting that the deletion nomination may need further scrutiny. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: highly promotional with passing mentions in mostly unreliable sources FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As noted at AN/I, I would have supported a speedy keep given the transparently disruptive nomination, but now that VWF and FuzzyMagma have offered good-faith delete !votes that option is off the table. Evaluating the sources, I see lots of promotional articles, single-source interviews and articles on his various companies -- nothing that would pass WP:GNG, WP:NPOL or WP:NBIO. Of note: this article also reads as promotional and the page creator's article on Anoke's company Zuri Health was speedily deleted under G11. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree. No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 14:29, 3 March 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable politician or businessperson who fails WP:NPOL or WP:BIO. Sources cited and from cursory search could not satisfy requirements for WP:GNG or even WP:BASIC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BIO. AgerJoy 18:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources appear to be promotional fluff. No pass on WP:NPOL, and no pass on WP:NBIO; awards appear non-significant. Article fails WP:NOTRESUME. (Also, I am genuinely confused about why there is a birth date here, when not a single source in the article lists a birth date or even year. 24eeWikiUser, where did you get the subject's birth date? Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, @Dclemens1971. For a quick search please see, [34], [35] and [36]. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Facebook page is a broken link, and the Instagram and X pages only list a birthdate, not a year, so if you are pulling a year in from other sources, that is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, thanks. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Sourcing is strictly from PR items and the article is about a corporate communications pro. Apart from the delicious irony of it all, I don't see notability. A PR person promoting themselves using PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nomination, the subject fails WP:GNG. Idoghor Melody (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Man seems to be doing his job, wants a Wikipedia article and uses a lot of PR, x of y and appointment news along with coporate muck to support it. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 14:34, 3 March 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.

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 merge‎ to Chocolate. asilvering (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:BEFORE in my assortment of chocolate books turned up nothing or mere mentions. No sigcov in Scholar, neither apparently in Books, TWL, JSTOR, Google, NYT archives. Lot of mentions of Mint chocolate chip, although it isn't an appropriate merge or redirect target. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Types of chocolate. Problem solved. BD2412 T 03:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a flavoring, like strawberry, coffee, or caramel. The scope of Types of chocolate is different, predominantly around production techniques. That being said, the scope could be redefined. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsure but lean towards weak delete. The flavour is clearly ubiquitous in many cultures and geographies, so it seems hard to believe that someone hasn't written a history of the social importance of it. But I'm not seeing anything. On the other hand there are a lot of these kinds of pages, for example Mint chocolate chip, which are apparently also weakly referenced. So I'm not sure. JMWt (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also unsure, but rather than merging to types of chocolate (which is currently very much types rather than flavours, another possible target would be Mint (candy), though again it enlarges the scope of the article, which currently only deals with little white sweets/candies, not big brown bars and mint-thins etc. Elemimele (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is not an easy one to search for - so many ads come up! I have searched for both "Mint chocolate" and "Chocolate Mint", and found a variety of sources and information. Whether it will add up to WP:SIGCOV I am not yet sure. The Tokyo Weekender has an article about how "chocmint" became popular in Japan [37]. (There seems to be a graphic novel series published in Japan called Mint Chocolate, too [38]) A choc-mint drink became a political symbol in Thailand [39] (but is this article just about individual or block mint-flavoured chocolate, or chocolate-coated mint, or does it extend to chocmint as a flavour?). Mashed has an article "Here's Where The Concept Of Mint Chocolate Came From" [40]. One well-known product missing from this WP article is the Girl Scout Cookies#Varieties Thin Mints - I found histories of them here [41] and here [42] (p 110). Chocolate mints on or under the pillow at hotels is described here [43] (not reliable, but gives info that could be searchable). Mathematician Jean Dieudonné promised a chocolate mint to whoever could explain why the social background in which Carl Friedrich Gauss lived led him to 17-sided regular polygons. [44]. Half of boxed chocolate mint sales are in the last 12 weeks of the year. [45] (and that source, Industrial Chocolate Manufacture and Use, has more info about mint chocolate that I can't see. The National Druggist had a recipe for "cocoa-mint" soda drink in 1897 [46] and Henley's Twentieth Century Book of Recipes, Formulas and Processes (1909) [47] also has one. Built on Chocolate: The Story of the Hershey Chocolate Company [48] has 6 results for "mint chocolate", which I can't see all of, but can see that there's info about Hershey's mint chocolate introduced in 1959 and discontinued in 1969 (which doesn't seem to be in the Hershey article, nor this article). I'll try to find other sources. (Btw, I do appreciate the nom's reference to "my assortment of chocolate books"! ) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! RebeccaGreen thankyou for all this! Yes, searching around food articles can really be hard to find independent sourcing. To my eyes, most of these sources are not about and do not establish notability for mint chocolate, but rather the flavor combination of chocolate and mint, which seems to be a missing broad-concept article.

Such an article would raise the question of the creation of articles for chocolate pairings of chocolate and vanilla [49], chocolate and chili [50], chocolate and caramel, chocolate and almonds [51]... Perhaps a list article would best serve the presentation of such information, although I won't pretend I know if it would meet WP:NLIST. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 00:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the difference between "mint chocolate" and "chocolate and mint" other than perhaps the latter would include "mint chocolate chip" even though it is a flavour of ice-cream. To me, "mint chocolate chip" is a use of mint chocolate, so I don't really see why it is a separate page anyway.

As far as I can see there is at least potential for an interesting and informative page on the history of this flavour. The problem isn't with the concept but the lack of reliable sources we can use. JMWt (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My name is Bearian and I'm addicted to chocolate mint. But seriously folks ... there are several good sources found already. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without prejudice to a merge to a new article on flavors of/added to chocolate. The sources list by RebeccaGreen above are enough to support an article, though it might be best to organize it as a section of a broader topic. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have a variety of opinions here and no consensus. Could some enterprising editor pull out the THREE best sources? I also recall during a blitz of similar AFDs 2 or 3 years ago, we had some AFD regulars and editors like User:Valereee who were well-educated in food and cookbook articles and sourcse. I just wish I could recall their usernames.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also a fan of mint chocolate, but would favour merging/redirect to Chocolate as it stands. I could maybe see an article being developed here, perhaps in the form of a broader concept article on flavouring chocolate. Until someone actually writes that, however, I don't see the depth of sourcing that really demonstrates this as an inherently notable stand-alone article. I looked at a number (perhaps ~15) of books on chocolate, including The Economics of Chocolate, Chocolate: History, Culture, and Heritage, Chocolate science and technology, Chocolate and Health, The Science of Chocolate and hardly any of them even includes the word 'mint'. That's suggestive to me that maybe we'd struggle to develop a full article here. The bits and pieces linked above, while fascinating, strike me as exactly that: bits and pieces. Hard to build an article out of. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge. None of these sources seems to be saying this is its own subject. There are mint chocolate everythings -- cookies, ice cream, frosting, vape -- but that doesn't make mint chocolate itself a topic people discuss. The fact there are a gazillion google hits on "mint chocolate" doesn't mean those sources are discussing the flavor. It means the flavor is popular, and people are talking about mint chocolate chip ice cream etc. Valereee (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: to the chocolate article seems appropriate. This appears to be more of a flavouring than a distinct type of food. One of many different flavours used. Oaktree b (talk) 21:39, 25 February 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.

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 ‎ nomination withdrawn. I didn't know there was a previous AFD discussion on it, which concluded as redirect, until completing this nomination and finding "2nd nomination" in the title — but there's also been a recent history of editwarring over anonymous IPs restoring the original article without improving it, so I've simply reverted the last restoration and protected the redirect instead. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:BLP of a person not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have or had jobs, and have to be shown to have WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage about them and their work in media -- but existence is the only notability claim on the table here, the only "referencing" present is a deadlinked primary source profile on the self-published website of his own directly affiliated management agency, and the article has been flagged for basic notability for a decade, and referencing problems for almost two decades, without improvement. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 25 February 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 23:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I suspect this was something which someone thought would catch on but did not. One external link is dead and the other does not show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. Appears to be an essay, written by someone who has never read a Wikipedia article. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 28 February 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.

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 redirect‎ to List of defunct airlines of Indonesia. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them contained any significant coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Examples: [52] [53] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, and Indonesia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of defunct airlines of Indonesia in the absense of sources to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect is a reasonable and efficient outcome. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of defunct airlines of Indonesia Jamiebuba (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Is the most appropriate action in this case. Provided sources aren’t sufficient for notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:46, 4 March 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.

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 delete‎. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Played 5 times professionally, hasn't played professionally since, fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, in no way eligible for Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Having been part of Japan's youth teams, he could even be draftified, but according to Soccerway he hasn't participated in professional matches since 2022. Appears to have abandoned his career. Svartner (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've been discussing RossEvans19's noms of Japanese players at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) recently. I've

The first thing I notice when looking at this BLP is that w:ja:原直生 is noticeably longer, cites six sources, and says that he's played 17 games for FC Tiamo Hirakata in addition the 5 for Shonan Bellmare.

Several of these cited sources at the Japanese Wikipedia are links to pages in the website for Shonan Bellmare, which I believe means that they are non-independent. However, it also cites this news article: https://web.gekisaka.jp/news/jleaguecup/detail/?325297-325297-fl (which is a couple of paragraphs about the first professional game he played).

And that source in turn leads me to these:

• https://web.gekisaka.jp/player/?48324-48324-jp – profile page; useful for citing basic information like birthdate, jersey numbers, national team appointments. (It also has a dozen photos, which is sometimes interesting for ==External links==.)
• https://web.gekisaka.jp/news/jleague/detail/?337042-337042-fl – news article about him and a teammate being promoted to the top team; easily surpasses the WP:100WORDS standard
• https://web.gekisaka.jp/news/jleague/detail/?350123-350123-fl – team roster for Shonan Bellmare 2022 season

Searching more generally:

• https://web.ultra-soccer.jp/news/view?news_no=434674 is an article in a sports news website that talks about his transfer

Thinking about the team roster, we have pages such as 2022–23 FC Bayern Munich season#Players, and we have a 2018 Shonan Bellmare season#Squad, and we have Shonan Bellmare#Current squad. Why are here at AFD, trying to delete a basic (if outdated) article, instead of creating a 2022 Shonan Bellmare season and redirecting any truly non-notable players to that, or to a List of Shonan Bellmare players, to coordinate with the Category:Shonan Bellmare players? Or to 2023 Tiamo Hirakata season, since he seems to have played more for them? Or redirecting it to FC Tiamo Hirakata#Current squad, where his name is already listed?

As a practical matter, his name is already linked in these four pages:

• FC Tiamo Hirakata
• List of J1 League football transfers winter 2019–20
• List of Japan Football League football transfers winter 2022–23
• List of J1 League football transfers winter 2022–23

and should be listed in these pages, if we ever get around to creating them:

• 2021 Shonan Bellmare season
• 2022 Shonan Bellmare season
• 2023 Tiamo Hirakata season
• List of Shonan Bellmare players
• List of Tiamo Hirakata players

and that, I think (in combination with the 100WORDS source) is probably a reason for us to just keep this article. I judge this as a case of borderline compliance with the GNG and a practical solution to providing information about an athlete who has played for two teams in three seasons.

BTW, since I don't read Japanese, it took me about an hour to sort through this one AFD. @RossEvans19, I see that you nominated almost 20 articles for deletion today, and that most of your nominations involve Japanese players. Did you search for Japanese-language sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first site you linked is a routine game recap that mentions him in passing. The stats profile page is obviously unusable for notability purposes. The other two Gekisaka links and the Ultra-Soccer link are routine transactional announcements that merely repeat the press releases + quotes. Transfer news like this is expected for every player, which is why no one brings it up at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News of any sort is accepted by the WP:GNG standard. Wikipedia:Notability#Events and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) exclude "routine" news reports, but the GNG does not. If people are ignoring reliable sources merely because they're expected to exist, they're not applying the GNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is policy, so no, WP:N does not accept just any type of news. If you think an announcement that is mostly comprised of verbatim quotes is acceptable coverage then you need to reacquaint yourself with our P&Gs. JoelleJay (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only sentence in NOTNEWS that could be relevant is For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events), which we have discussed elsewhere. It's not at all clear that an article talking about someone's education is "routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't discuss his education at all! Where are you reading that?? And literally the only non-quote content in it is On the 20th, Shonan Bellmare announced that Shonan Bellmare U-18 defender Ishii Daisei and midfielder Hara Naoki will be promoted to the top team next season. Both players have been registered with the top team as second-category players since last season, and Hara played in four games in the Levain Cup this season. Which is trivial, routine announcement coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This source: https://web.ultra-soccer.jp/news/view?news_no=434674

Google Translate renders part of it thusly: "Hara is a product of Shonan's academy. He was registered as a second-class player while enrolled in the academy, and was officially promoted last season, but he ended up not playing, and will be looking for a new challenge this year. He said goodbye through Shonan. "I was able to grow thanks to Bellmare since my first year of high school, but I had a lot of worries last season, so I decided to transfer in order to grow even more. I will continue to do my best. Thank you."" WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can you leave me alone? I don't know why you've taken so against what I'm doing - I'm really not trying to offend or insult or hurt - I'm just trying to remove Wikipedia of poor articles. RossEvans19 (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Editors (not any individual, but all of us) should not use AFD as a way "to remove poor articles". Poor articles should get improved with the [Edit] button.

The reason I asked you about language-specific searches is because it's especially difficult to determine whether a Japanese subject is notable if you can't read Japanese. I can't. I found some sources by checking a very small fraction of the reliable sources listed in List of newspapers in Japan. It's very slow work for me. Someone who could read Japanese would be able to do it much faster. If you have done that work, please tell us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Even though he played for the Japan Football League after 2022, as far as I know, it is not a full-professional league. More substantial sources for WP:SIGCOV are missing here. Svartner (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 100Words is an essay with no standing, NOTNEWS is policy, and the sources presented above are trivial and routine coverage. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per GiantSnowman. Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:18, 1 March 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 23:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

lack of notability and reliable sources. It currently does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline Edit.pdf (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Edit.pdf (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Guatemala. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 25 February 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 23:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COWEX A/S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

lack of reliable sources supporting the information presented. Edit.pdf (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Edit.pdf (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. SPA-created article about a minor Danish company. I can't find a single source with WP:SIGCOV. Sam Sailor 10:31, 27 February 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 23:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotional not-sourced content Edit.pdf (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Edit.pdf (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 25 February 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.

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 redirect‎ to List of defunct airlines of Benin. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them contained any significant coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, and Africa. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don’t see any notable coverage here. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of defunct airlines of Benin in the absense of sources to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect is both efficient and reasonable. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 28 February 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Played once professionally, retired in 2003, fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Big failure of SPORTCRIT, nothing usable in ja:wiki. Edited by sock farm and creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks notability . No significant coverage Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:21, 4 March 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.

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 delete‎. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article has no sourcing, just a link to a puff piece interview. The article was created by the same account that created the article for Brian Reid and has no other edit history. Of the 5 results when searching for Mirrus, 1 is a different company, 3 appear to be sponsored content about the product, and the last is just a mention of where someone used to work. Moritoriko (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, Technology, and South Carolina. Moritoriko (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Coverage that I find is largely PR items. This is a brief news item [54]. Article feels PROMO, and the lack of RS isn't helping. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising.--Edit.pdf (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no reliable reference, very puffy. Kingsize8 (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 23:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the same business. Moritoriko (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkm777, Why did you edit my vote and added a link that i don’t understand? You are disrupting my edits Kingsize8 (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 23:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: I think a poor research was performed before nominating. I have found several articles that could establish notability: Eagle County Online, Daily Mail, Business Insider and upi.com.Darkm777 (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above the first link is a different business, the one in that link manufactures car parts not mirrors. Daily Mail as a source is usually considered suspect. One possible source that might exist is something in a local Chicago paper about this installation but I still don't feel like it is about the company Mirrus. We could add a mention on the Clear Channel Outdoor page but I don't think this defunct company is notable. Moritoriko (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This search [55] turns up an article in the Chicago Tribune, but it seems very similar to the UPI article, or at least uses some of the same quotes. Moritoriko (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What is there PR and press-releases. The Daily Mail is non-rs. The Eagle Press is a routine annoucement of non-notable award. Fails WP:NCORP. Should have been G11'd. scope_creep^Talk 05:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. For the record, UPI and Daily Mirror are no longer reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteAs per nomination. It lacks notability. Sources are not entirely neutral. Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:27, 4 March 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IZA Journal of Development and Migration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Insignificant journal, publishing discontinued for years. Newklear007 (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Economics. Newklear007 (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – No significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:36, 2 March 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Played 4 times professionally, retired in 2006, fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Big failure of SPORTCRIT, nothing usable in ja:wiki. Edited by sock farm and creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:25, 26 February 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 14:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Seems to be just a different transliteration so I don’t think it is notable enough to have its own article. If there were sources it could be merged I guess Chidgk1 (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Islam. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:56, 25 February 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 14:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Aside from the subject not being notable enough, the article lacks significant information and has numerous issues. Although it has been around for more than a decade, these issues have not been resolved by readers, and the article has hardly evolved at all. This indicates that it has not garnered enough interest and suggests that it likely will not improve in the future. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 13:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, Websites, and Lebanon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nominator. Sources are regular PR and WP:MILL. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:33, 1 March 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.

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 redirect‎ to Karalliyadda Kandegammedda. asilvering (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The nominated article and Karalliyadda Kandegammedda refer to the same locality in the Kandy District of Sri Lanka. Both were created by the same editor on 17 January 2011 at 20:18 and 20:19, respectively. The only difference between them is the spelling of "Karalliyadda", with the latter being the correct one. Therefore, the nominated article should either be deleted or redirected to the correctly spelled version. QEnigma talk 11:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Asia, and Sri Lanka. QEnigma talk 11:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect: The creator produced many articles using census data etc, so the incorrect spelling seems likely to appear in some documents. Furius (talk) 01:48, 28 February 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 01:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and New York. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:33, 18 February 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 11:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG and lack WP: SIGCOV. AgerJoy 18:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability in reliable and independent sources. Madeleine (talk) 01:12, 28 February 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

BLP is sourced entirely to self-written pieces or interviews of subject (other than one "American Conservative" article which isn't WP:NPOV). Extensive talk page discussion by subject with other editors, arguing about his notability (over a 15+ year interval); WP:JOURNO non-notable journalist/blogger. Also, subject has at least two WP accounts and makes edits to this BLP as well as his wife's BLP so there's a serious COI. Re possible sockpuppet issue see User:WillWilkinson and User:Will_Wilkinson FeralOink (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FeralOink (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 18 February 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 11:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not seeing notability, in the article or elsewhere. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Has written a few opinion pieces, but these don't show notability. I'm not finding any articles about this person and the sourcing used in the article isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 25 February 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Player with few professional appearances for América Teofilo Otoni and the defunct Phoenix FC. Nothing that indicates WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Hasn't played enough to have enough written about him. Fails WP:GNG – RossEvans19 (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't see any significant coverages and also fails WP:GNG. AgerJoy 18:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:24, 26 February 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.

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 Delete per A10 (non-admin closure) ‎. Conyo14 (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop perfomers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Random selection from what could be a nearly endless list. We have many subpages, so perhaps this can be turned into a disambiguation / navigation page, but as a stand-alone list it is impossible to compile or would simply duplicate the endless Category:Pop musicians and Category:Pop music groups trees. Fram (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists of people. Fram (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• See also the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mainstream pop performers, apparently this article was created to avoid the probabe fate of that previous attempt. Fram (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: On top of all the other issues already mentioned here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mainstream pop performers, this (iteration of the) list's title isn't even spelled correctly — it's supposed to be "performers", not "perfomers". (Such misspellings would not be unheard of for a salt evasion, but the first version of the list hasn't even been deleted yet, as that AfD is only two days old.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 25 February 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe 'A' Level Top 100 Schools 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTSTATS, does not meet WP:NLIST. it's lio! | talk | work 10:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Zimbabwe. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS (the source does not appear reliable either) jolielover♥talk 16:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can't find similar articles for any other country. NavjotSR (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:INDISCRIMINATE Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:41, 4 March 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.

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 redirect‎ to List of Rajasthani-language films#2020 to 2025. asilvering (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Disputed draftification. This cannot be moved back to draft under WP:DRAFTOBJECT without consensus, so here we are. WP:ALLPLOT, improperly referenced. Fails WP:V thus WP:N is not proven. Fails WP:NFILM. Moved to mainspace with no edits after being declined at AFC 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Rajasthan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Fails notability guidelines. I was unable to find any additional news about this. Maxcreator (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_Rajasthani-language_films#2020_to_2025 -Mushy Yank. 10:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and prevent recreation in mainspace. Fails WP:N.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_Rajasthani-language_films#2020_to_2025 or Delete. Fails to meet WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 26 February 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 11:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article clearly fails WP:GNG, None of the cited sources provides WP:SIGCOV of this conflict. Koshuri ^(グ) 10:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, India, and Rajasthan. Koshuri ^(グ) 10:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 25 February 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.

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 merge‎ to Interstellar travel#Nanoprobes. ✗plicit 00:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I didn't find any significant coverage of this idea in secondary sources, only several mentions of it. The article is sourced with one primary source and one passing mention. Without additional sources, it appears not notable enough for an article. Artem.G (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Spaceflight. Artem.G (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this seems similar to the proposal at interstellar travel#Nanoprobes. Perhaps this article should be merged? Praemonitus (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I think Praemonitus has got it right. This should be sentence or two at interstellar travel#Nanoprobes, where a single proposal source would be okay. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Praemonitus --cyclopia^speak! 18:17, 25 February 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.

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 merge‎ to Tourism in Portland, Oregon#Attractions. While not necessarily a violation of WP:NOTTRAVEL, consensus here is that there is no encyclopedic justification for a standalone article, given the obvious target as an ATD. Owen× ☎ 14:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist attractions near Portland, Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Prodded by me with "WP:NOTTRAVEL, no sources. Many of these are several hours away from Portland, so if you want to keep this, turn it into a general Oregon tourism page rather than a ridiculous "near Portland, Oregon" day trip travel guide." Prod2 from Bearian with "That's what WikiVoyage is for." Liz deprodded with "Removing PROD tag, I'll see if there are sources". Yes, obviously we could find sources that the Timberline Lodge offers skiing and is 62 miles from Portland, but perhaps I didn't need to note that since filling this with citations would not fix the fundamental problems with this page that would require a full TNT under a different name even under my suggestion to make it a better subarticle of Oregon#Tourism and entertainment or Tourism in Portland, Oregon (even as two items are in Washington). Reywas92^Talk 16:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 16:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There are no other Wikipedia articles about tourist attractions near (a subjective word) a city, but numerous lists of tourist attractions by populated place. So, just move and rescope the page to List of tourist attractions in Portland, Oregon as an extension of Tourism in Portland, Oregon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are zero items here that are in Portland so a rescope would be deleting everything and starting from zero. You are welcome to create a new page listing Portland attractions should a subarticle to that be needed, but that's irrelevant to this article that can be deleted whether you do that or not. Reywas92^Talk 17:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Since the article's prose links to Tourism in Portland, Oregon and includes two Portland-specific categories, I was just thinking of a way to preserve the article history. I would be fine with a rescope and rebuild; it would be very quick and easy to do. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Clearly redundant to Tourism in Portland, Oregon, and the Wikivoyage listings. Even with improvements to comply with NOTGUIDE, I don't see why this can't be folded into the Tourism article as a simple table of attractions by visitation numbers (at most). SounderBruce 17:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested, but it's up to the closing admin to decide what to merge selectivity into Tourism in Portland, Oregon, and a redirect to that article or WikiVoyage. If Liz or anyone else finds reliable sources for this larger topic, then that would make me change my mind. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. I don't think any "list of tourist attractions" could possibly pass an AfD here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I just spot checked five cities from around the world in the list of tourist attractions and I don't think any of them qualify to be on Wikipedia. I think a "most visited attractions" might be okay, but they're all essentially just indiscriminate lists of things. SportingFlyer T·C 20:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to List of tourist attractions in Portland, Oregon as per AnotherBeliever. Article needs a considerable amount of rework to make it appear a lot less like a travel guide. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, if you rename it that, not a single word could be kept because there are zero items in the list that are in Portland. There is literally nothing of use in this article to fit that title, and there is no need to keep this page's history to support a Portland-specific list. Reywas92^Talk 14:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Took me a whopping 2 minutes to add 25 PDX sites to the list. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the list should be restricted to in Portland only, not outside of Portland (and especially not 100 miles away). Ajf773 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ajf773  Done The list is specific to Portland. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A tourist attraction 459 km away??? I'm trying to imagine what this list would look like for Brussels or Paris or any city in more densely populated regions... Nothing to merge, if a list of tourist attractions in Portland is deemed a noteworthy subject and fit for enwiki then it should be started from scratch. Fram (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to List of tourist attractions in Portland, Oregon, since User:Another Believer has improved the page so it's well-sourced and restricted to Portland. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]