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 Karafuto Prefecture. Content can also be Merged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Karafuto (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 is a content fork of Sakhalin#Geography and Sakhalin#Climate; additionally, it is simply a list. b3stJ (IPA: /bʌˈθrɛstˌdʒeɪ/, formerly AEagleLionThing) | User talk page | 23:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Japan, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - since the article lacks reference and it discusses on the Geography of Karafuto Prefecture in which there is already an existing article on Karafuto Prefecture - I think it is best if we merge it into the main article Karafuto Prefecture as a subset describing it's Geography. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I would have voted to merge, but nothing in Geography of Karafuto, which is essentially a list article, is sourced. Yue🌙 05:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Karafuto Prefecture. Nothing to merge without sources, but could be a resource for expanding the main article and is a reasonable search term. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Karafuto Prefecture. Per above. No need a seperate article for this. Cold Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Karafuto Prefecture. Per above .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Karafuto Prefecture. It has some useful info like links and can made its own section in that article. Ramos1990 (talk)

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 Mauritania at the 1996 Summer Olympics. RL0919 (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Declined prod. The only added source was world athletics database. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, WP:NOLY and WP:NATH. LibStar (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per the nominator's rationale. Yue🌙 23:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Athletics at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres where his last place finish in a preliminary heat is recorded (his time was almost three-and-a-half seconds behind the winning time). A stand-alone article can't be supported, because there is a complete failure to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, which mandates: "All sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." (Emphasis added.) Cbl62 (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The trend of Wikipedia is generally against these subject-specific guidelines, so I put little weight on whether or not NSPORT is met. important part is whether or not topic-neutral guidelines like WP:N are met, which I would say is met in this case via NEXIST. Subject was not merely an Olympian but qualified as the sole representative of his country at several global championships over a 13-year period, making the case for sources existing quite strong. Assuming he had to win a national championship to qualify as was standard practice at the time, that would make him meet WP:NATH as well FWIW. I was able to find an alternate name (Brahim Mohamed Ould) for the subject which I added a redirect for, and found two other major international competitions linked. The article needs some work, but I think the pieces are there for this. --Habst (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "making the case for sources existing quite strong." Where are these sources? LibStar (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In offline Mauritanian news archives. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well unless evidence of existence of sources is provided, this article will not be kept. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mauritania at the 1996 Summer Olympics: As an AtD since no one has offered evidence of WP:SIGCOV qualifying this subject as notable under WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. Should SIGCOV be found in the future, the article history will be available to expand as a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Arabic is not a language I am familiar with, I'm depedent on machine translation, but this news report from 2008 appears to indicate that he was the President of the Mauritanian Olympic Association at that time. I'm not sure if that is the official IOC body of Mauritania, but if it is, and he was President, that would indicate far higher likelihood of notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Appears the offical IOC affiliate is the Mauritanian National Olympic and Sports Committee and he was not President at any point: https://www.cnosm.mr/node/1173. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In French I can find references (eg https://cridem.org/imprimable.php?article=723992) to the "Association des Olympiens Mauritaniens" - which looks to be similar to a players' association (ie sports persons trade union). And here on p.59 of the document (numbered page 683) it shows the registration of the organisation with Mohamed Ould Brahim as President. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mauritania at the 1996 Summer Olympics I've searched in French and Arabic under his name and can find no more than what is above. For the Mauritanian Olympians' Association there are some mentions in French language news reports, but none mentioning him. The single Arabic item mentioning the Association and him is the only one I could find. One of the French articles seems to indicate that the current President (a Sydney 2000 Olympian) had sought to revive the organisation ("à remettre sur les rails cette association") when she became President in 2011 - suggesting a lack of notability in its earlier phase when Mohamed Ould Brahim was President. It might be possible that the Mauritanian Olympians' Association is notable, but given there is no article for that, redirection to the 1996 Olympics article appears most suitable. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, per Cbl62. Consensus is very strong that NSPORT requires SIGCOV sources be cited in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mauritania at the 1996 Summer Olympics. Lack of SIGCOV resulting in the subject not meeting GNG. While Athletics at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres is a suitable target as well, my preference is the Mauritania list based on recent precedent to redirect less-than-GNG athletes to the “country at year Olympics” article. Frank Anchor 16:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mauritania at the 1996 Summer Olympics Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG, with the only sources being primary references. Let'srun (talk) 17:39, 29 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 Jack Kerouac#Literary executorship and representation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Shen-Sampas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a notable person; their only noteworthiness is as executor for Kerouac, which is already covered in that article. There's no proper sourcing--and it's a pretty obvious COI creation, according to some editors. Pinging participants in talk page conversation: User:Wikirhood, User:Toddst1, User:Ashmoo, User:Auranor, and User:Samwillan2019. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have repaired the incomplete link syntax in the nomination (which is allowed), which prevented {{subst:afd2}} from being called. No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jack Kerouac#Literary executorship and representation; no WP:SIGCOV found. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 18:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - literally a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: as above seems fine, not much notability outside of that role. Very minimal sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jack Kerouac#Literary executorship and representation per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 22:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Rugby League Association (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 governing body with no affiliation to either the IRL or ERL. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no significant coverage or indication of notability. Archive copy of the PRLA website (history) says it is/was based in Australia with affiliation to AFL and NSWRL – but I found nothing on their websites about it. For IRL and ERL, nothing on the old IRL websites (rlif.com and rlif.org), but archived pages on rlef.eu.com (such as Euro Seeding) indicate that Portugal had observer status c.2006–2010 and the site had a link to the PRLA website. The only article of note about Portugal on the current ERL website is from November 2023 about seeking to establish a Portugal RL federation, but it does not name the PRLA. EdwardUK (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Single source article Mn1548 (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom ,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article has existed since 2008 and only 1 source. Ramos1990 (talk)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go Bowling (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 about a band, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain specific notability criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them -- but this cites no referencing at all, and is basically written as a directory entry rather than an encyclopedia article: it goes "they are a band who exist, list of members, list of recordings, website link, the end", without documenting a single thing about their career that could possibly be measured against NMUSIC at all. And the article's been tagged for lacking sourcing since 2010 without ever having any sourcing added.
Simple existence is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a band from having to have any sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A start here: Allmusic [5] [6] [7] as well as [8] [9] [10](very short) [11] (user generated?) Geschichte (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep On top of the critical coverage identified by Geschichte, one of which states the subject is one of the "founders of West Coast ska revival", there is further critical coverage in another WP:RSMUSIC publication here. I have added several of the identified citations to the article; it is no longer unsourced but still needs expansion. Should be enough here to get over the bar for a keep. ResonantDis_tortion 20:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Further coverage from the Fresno Bee and the Arizona Daily Star has been identified and added to the article. The bylined Bee article states the subject is "pretty much the biggest band to come out of Fresno". ResonantDis_tortion 20:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per above. Geschichte (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 21:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, they meet WP:BAND. In addition to the sources found and added by ResonantDistortion, I've found in digitised newspapers a 1995 article/review of their first CD [12]; a 1996 review of their second CD [13]; a 1997 review of a live performance with songs from their 2nd CD, which also says a video of a single from that CD was on regular rotation on MTV2 [14]; and a para about that video in an article about ska music [15]. (The links are to NewspaperArchive.com in the Wikipedia library, so should be accessible to anyone with access to that.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:13, 31 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 speedy delete‎. CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elvire Jaspers (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)

Appears entirely promotional Amigao (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails the GNG as a regular professional at work. gidonb (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it is very likely that she is notable - she was the director-general of the Dutch Public Broadcasting organisation for 5 years. The position of Director-General of the BBC is notable, as are all the people who have held that position. All the managing directors of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation are notable. Usually, being appointed to that position means the person has already had significant achievements, and it results in significant coverage of them and scrutiny of their decisions while they are in the position. Such coverage of this person would obviously be in Dutch. I'll see what I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article appears to already be deleted. This discussion can be closed. Ramos1990 (talk)

No, an article should not be deleted during an AfD discussion. There is no consensus on deletion - my Comment is against deletion, so I don't think the discussion should be closed yet. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. I see a consensus to Keep this article although it might benefit from a title change or editing improvements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Delhi (1783) (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)

As far as I can read in the cited sources (some are unreliable [16]), this is not even a battle; it is about plundering, collecting tribute, and building Gurudwaras, a topic which isn't really notable enough to deserve it's own article. The cited sources do not call it the "Battle of Delhi" even once.If necessary, we can redirect this page to the Sikh attacks on Delhi. AlvaKedak (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. AlvaKedak (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per the arguments of the nominator. Ramencolls (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree that the sources that I checked do not say Battle but it is evident from sources that fight took place with Mughals trying to prevent Sikhs from capturing Delhi with significant coverage in reliable sources like Gupta and Gandhi that shows the fight took place, "The Mughal response was swift but ineffective. Prince Mirza Shikoh attempted to repel the Sikhs near Qila Mahtabpur but was defeated and forced to retreat. By March 9, widespread panic had engulfed Delhi as the Sikhs breached the city through the Ajmeri Gate, proceeding to devastate the Hauz Qazi area. In a separate engagement, Fazal Ali Khan confronted the invaders; however, the clash resulted in the death of Rao Dhiraj Ram’s son from Pahari Dhiraj." Passes WP:GNG and maybe renaming the title to Capture of Delhi (1783) will be better. RangersRus (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources cited may mention skirmishes, like the Mughal response or the clash with Fazal Ali Khan, but they do not frame this as a cohesive "battle" or even a singular, significant event. Instead, it is portrayed as part of a broader pattern of Sikh incursions, specifically plunder and collection of tribute, as noted in the nomination. This aligns with WP:NEVENT, which requires events to have lasting significance or widespread recognition, neither of which is evident here beyond routine historical raiding. You suggest renaming it to "Capture of Delhi (1783)," but the sources don’t consistently support a "capture" either; the Sikhs entered, looted, and left, they did not establish control. This makes it a poor fit for a standalone article and more of a footnote to the Sikh attacks on Delhi#Twelfth attack page, where it is already covered adequately. Creating a separate page risks WP:CONTENTFORK, duplicating content without adding value. The quoted passage about Mirza Shikoh and Fazal Ali Khan, while detailed, doesn’t elevate this above other minor clashes in the same sequence, failing WP:SIGCOV for a distinct topic.Deletion, or at minimum a redirect to Sikh attacks on Delhi, is the better option per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. AlvaKedak (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No I do not agree. Sources clearly show that they fought, captured, plundered, sat on the throne and while some left after days after agreement, there were others who stayed for months to build temples per agreement between the Mughal King and the Sikhs. I am going to leave it to that. RangersRus (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I've just rolled back some significant sockpuppet edits, but tbqh looking at the page history I wouldn't be surprised if all the text that remains is also of sockpuppet origin. -- asilvering (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is a bit strange. Assessing the sources help me understand that this passes WP:GNG, which supersedes WP:NEVENT if at all there's any debate on whether it passes it or not. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 20:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Regardless of whether or not it was an actual "battle". This event passes WP:GNG. -- Mike 🗩 16:34, 27 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bata Mahadeva (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 notability. I can't find any significant (or even insignificant) coverage of this hindu temple by any reliable or notable sources. The only source of this article gives me a security warning when trying to access the page. Not exactly the best sign. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, Hinduism, India, and Odisha. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: From a quick read of the page, seems this is a heritage site - notability per WP:NGEO?. Maybe there are sources (non-english sources maybe) that can be used to develop the page further. Asteramellus (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe, I wasn't able to access the page, but I'll assume you're right. I still think it should be deleted as there isn't significant coverage (as far as I can tell). If anyone can find some good sources that show notability, I'll be willing to eat my words. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)#[reply]

• Keep - the article has two sources: one is the heritage documentation you were unable to access (via a different route - I've added the link); the other is what appears to be a standard work on Bhubaneswar monuments, which was already in the article - just because it's not online doesn't mean it should be discounted. Ingratis (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, I guess I'll eat my words, Withdrawn Gaismagorm (talk) 16:59, 29 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!} 22:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Megatokyo characters (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 main characters are already fully covered on the main Megatokyo article, and this spinout list is just overly detailed plot summaries and speculations based entirely on primary sources. Searches are not turning up any coverage in reliable sources that discuss the various minor and supporting characters of the webcomic in any way that would justify this spinout list, or allow it to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. Rorshacma (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Webcomics, and Lists. Rorshacma (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a reasonable WP:SPLIT. Needs trimming. Remember that WP:NLIST indicates that list can be kept for navigational reasons (but adding sources and removing what seems personal interpretations is necessary; which are cleanup issues). Best, -Mushy Yank. 09:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If I may ask, what navigational purposes does this list serve? None of the individual entries have their own articles to link to, and the only other article that relates to this one is the main Megatokyo article that this was split from. And I would argue that the lack of sources is not a cleanup issue, as I stated in my nom that my WP:BEFORE was unable to locate any significant coverage in reliable, non-primary sources discussing these characters. Rorshacma (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The split makes navigation more comfortable for the reader and avoids a long list per Wikipedia:SPLITLIST, which states:" If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page. Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy." Notability of the set should therefore not be a concern. Part of the characters’ description is sourced in the fiction itself. Midwestern Folklore. (2005).  Department of English, Indiana State University and a few other Gbooks hits seem to contain a few helpful things. Now, if you want to redirect and cut down material and everyone agrees it’s a nice enough navigation experience, feel free. -Mushy Yank. 19:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I don't see any evidence in the sources that "Megatokyo characters" is an established subject of its own, that its characters have relevance outside of the encyclopedic subject of the main work, or that minor characters are mentioned by sources at all. The list is almost exclusively cited to primary sources, suggesting that this is more of a fan-wiki list than an encyclopedic one. Significant characters are described in plenty depth in the main article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as well for me, and merge any salvageable details regards the characters to the Megatokyo article.Villkomoses (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I agree with Mable's point that there's no evidence that "Megatokyo characters" is an established subject of its own. It's not notable a topic for us own separate article. Also agree with Villkomoses that anything from this article could be ported to m the main article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG not a established subject of its own.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all, as failing to pass WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 22:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A completely unnotable temple in india. The article is completely unsourced, and some searching on google finds nothing that shows any form of notability. The closest thing to a source is a website about the family that build it (i think), but thats a primary source. Absolutely no coverage by outside sources. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Doesn't seem notable. Based on content, seems of local significance - maybe a section can be added on Kovur, Nellore district page for the content which is on this page? Asteramellus (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete existence is not notability. I could not find anything else than tourism details. lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:11, 29 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. First, I see policy-based reasons for Deleting this article. Most of the Keep arguments are talking about an article that they hope this will become some day but not about its present condition.

Secondly, do not retitle an article that is being discussed at an AFD discussion, it confusese the tools we use to manage, relist and close discussions. Wait until the discussion is closed to move an article.

Finally, this article could have been moved to Draft space rather than brought to AFD but that sometimes results in move wars by editors who insist articles be in main space. I'm happy to restore this article to Draft space (or you can make a request at WP:REFUND) but since this AFD discussion closed with a Delete outcome, know that you will have to submit a draft to WP:AFC for review and not just move it back to main space in a few days. This article will need improvement with sourcing and also editors will have to rewrite or refocus the article so it is clear that the concept refers to a unitifed, coherent event, not separate, different occurrences that just happened around the same time of the year. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan Spring (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 page lacks any sources - it fails WP:GNG and WP:V. The author of the article themself (or rather, the editor that changed it from a redirect to an article) only cited a Reddit thread in one of his edits. And indeed, there are no reliable sources that can be found. The article wishes to refer to a wave of anti-government protests and civil unrest that swept across Southeastern and Central Europe in late 2024 and 2025, yet apart from the Reddit thread, the sources are either irrelevant (a movie) or are from 2018-2020, thus unrelated to what the subject is supposed to be. Brat Forelli🦊 18:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Turkey. Zeibgeist (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though I understand and appreciate your thoughts, what I meant with Reddit was to show that this term is now broadly being used in Balkan youth, and I am not capable of writing whole details of events here. I know that Turkey’s situation is fairly new though.

I was hoping other authors can participate further, instead of deleting it. Mavreju (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, all Slovakia, Serbia and Turkey protests are from 2025. Aren’t they?

If not, feel free to fix them instead of deleting it. Mavreju (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a different issue. Per WP:RSREDDIT, it is impossible for us to consider Reddit a reliable source for any sort of claim. You do wish to prove that this term is now broadly being used in Balkan youth, but this cannot be done. If this term was widespread, then we would have reliable sources to show its WP:N. But we do not. Brat Forelli🦊 18:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You are a better Wiki author than me, to be honest. So I won’t insist. Thanks!

Let’s see what others think too! Mavreju (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian protests have been going on since 3rd november DJpro39 (talk) 05:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said late 2024 actually. Mavreju (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless reliable sources find these events connected, then recreate the article with valid sources. Polish kurd (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources. Can you check? Mavreju (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the sources is that none of them actually talk about a Balkan Spring and searching "Balkan Spring" brings up stuff from 2019. Polish kurd (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete No sources. You could have also draftified this yourself too, no need for AFD on a new page – it is not acceptable to create an article without reliable sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added sources. Can you check? Mavreju (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This does not seem to be enough to need an article to tie them all together. Yes many countries in the region have experienced protests recently, no this is not a unified concept since all of the things being protested are quite distinct and independent. Reywas92^Talk 04:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as we don't have any sources to support the article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added sources. Can you check? Mavreju (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You appear to have added 5 sources - 4 of those do not use the label of "Balkan Spring". One source does, Newsweek. The problem is, this is not a reliable source. Take a look at WP:NEWSWEEK: Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. (...) In addition, as of April 2024, Newsweek has disclosed that they make use of AI assistance to write articles. Brat Forelli🦊 08:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, shame on them to be honest. Mavreju (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article could be renamed to "2024–present Balkan anti-government protests". Arsabent (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, could we please stop with the "-present"? 2024-25 is fine, if it lasts longer it can be extended. Polish kurd (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think -present is a general usage. Mavreju (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m fine with the title change. Mavreju (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but are these protests related to eachother? In Romania they're anti-EU, in Slovakia they're pro-EU, etc... Polish kurd (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of. They are all considered to be anti-government protests. Arsabent (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romania may be the only exception but still it’s freedom-related. Mavreju (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Slovakia is a long way from the Balkans. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Its close enough for it to be relevant also the protests are similar so it makes sense for them to fall under this umbrella term. Roc1233 (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Do sources group them in this way? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article title issue can be worked out and "Balkans" may well not be the best descriptor but the phenomenon is real. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (now being gutted by the US Trump administration) covered the protests in four countries in this article What's Fueling Protests In Georgia, Hungary, Romania, And Serbia?. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And Georgia is even further. Only one and a bit of those four countries are in the Balkans (Serbia and some of Romania). I'm finding it difficult to discern what the subject of this article actually is. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I agree that the title can be changed, it's slowly being mentioned in the media that these protests are inspired by each other, and people tell each other to get courage from the other countries. Thousands of edits are being shared in social media as a solidarity. Though I know original researches are not allowed, I'm pretty sure there are solid sources that can be found about it. I think up until the name "Balkan Spring" is widely accepted, 2024-25 Balkan protests or 2024-25 Anti-authoritarianism protests can be okay for this page. Orange-Puppy-2221 (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Article blatantly fails WP:V, there is no source that events are connected, no usage of the term, apart from pushing fringe internet theories. Romania421 (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With the title change, the article no longer fails WP:V, nor WP:GNG: notability is obvious due to international and trustworthy agencies and press covering it, also being noted as a phenomenon. Verifiability is now also valid, due to the title change, as indeed no articles explicitly called it "Balkan Spring", but would refer to them as more of a "wave of protests in Southeast Europe". Boria02 (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1, Agreed Mavreju (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1, makes sense in its current form Orange-Puppy-2221 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article still very much fails WP:V and WP:GNG, because there are likewise no reliable sources that would demonstrate the sufficient notability of the name "Southeast Europe protests". Thus, so far the article has the same issues, not to mention that it is trying to establish a connection between these protests in a WP:OR manner. Brat Forelli🦊 19:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Just look at the news and certain countries, it's an important event Yesyesmrcool (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Theres very little legitimate sources which refer to these disconnected protests as the Balkan Spring. This article, as OP stated, originates from Reddit and is a sort of attempt to make these events larger than life, like a movie. EmilePersaud (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple protests across multiple countries with the same goal. Scuba 17:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The term "balkan spring" certainly isn't appropriate, but there have been a surge of protests since October 2024. The best, most neutral, and most appropriate way to "do" this article would be as a smaller list Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've moved fraudulent !votes from an IP-hopping editor to the hatted section above. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference has coined the term Balkan Spring. Completely original research title. Ecrusized (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is still valuable information in this article. Why not just change the title and keep the page? Orange-Puppy-2221 (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I agree that the article should be kept. However, the term "Balkan spring", which I like, was used only on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1ji90u8/the_balkan_spring_is_here/ . The title "2024-2025 Eastern European/Balkan Protests" is more fit, at least until the press adopts the balkan spring term. Edward Mike005 (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The term "2024-2025 Eastern European/Balkan Protests" would also need to be used by reliable sources however. Brat Forelli🦊 19:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Based on arguments already provided above. Rutdam (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problems here were no sources and the term of Balkan Spring. Both of these were resolved when you commented. So what’s the problem now? Mavreju (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sources for "Southeast Europe protests" either. Every one of those protest has its own article and this new article does not adds up anything new, it just summerizes every protest. The article is very OR with only one source backing the claim of the interrelated "Southeast European protests". Rutdam (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with this. If "Balkan Spring" already lacked sources to justify its usage on Wikipedia, then likewise, there are no reliable sources for "Southeast Europe protests" at all. Brat Forelli🦊 19:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does this article have with 2025 Southeast Europe retail boycotts in terms of "having separate problems in the region"? Orange-Puppy-2221 (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: If it looks like WP:OR and sounds like WP:OR, then it probably is WP:OR Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: Sources needed but i can see it becoming a thing in media so i would not delete it right away; also which boycotts are meant, 2025 Southeast Europe retail boycotts? Braganza (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article was moved [17] during this AfD, at 11:07, 28 March 2025. Toadspike [Talk] 21:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am leaning towards deletion or draftification here. I am very much concerned about SYNTH and I haven't seen any sources describing all of these protests with disparate causes as a group. However, many of the original !votes were specifically objecting to the original title, which has now been replaced with a much broader and less SYNTHy title, which might make those objections moot. Toadspike [Talk] 21:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After the name change, I lean keep — IмSтevan ^talk 21:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The name change to Southeast Europe protests (2024–present) still leaves the title not describing the content of the article. Hungary is not in Southeast Europe and Slovakia is nowhere near it. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources have been found. [[18]] and [[19]]

• For everyone that says Delete, can you please say why in detail? For example, what difference does it have with 2025 Southeast Europe retail boycotts? Which is also people inspired by each other. Why is one article ok, and the other is not? It's obvious that the people in these countries inspired by each other in the protests, and it's supported with sources. If you think this is not happening and not real, I would get the Delete vote, but saying that is kind of delusional imho. If you think if you have problems with wordings or sources, why don't you contribute and fix the article instead of deleting? Do we delete the Syrian civil war article just because we don't like wordings or sources? For some reason, even though there are sources and inspirations, I don't get why the authors here doesn't like to accept it. It's not about your personal opinion. Also, the people that say Slovakia is not in Southeast Europe, I can agree, but it's also in: 2025 Southeast Europe retail boycotts article too, that's why I'm not getting why it's ok in one article, but not in another. It reeks bias. For God's sake, even Czechia is colored in the article! And please don't come with "it's wrong in the other article too", no one is arguing if that article should be deleted there. Like I said, if you have problems with it, fix it. It's not that I care too much with this article, but I think it serves valuable information and trying to delete it seems contradictory to me. Orange-Puppy-2221 (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  these protests are independent from another, especially Romania & Greece Braganza (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Braganza already pointed out the problem briefly - the article seeks to combine all these protests and claims that they all represent a single movement, with shared goals. This is indeed unsourced and is a classic example of WP:OR. The article was created as "Balkan Spring" and AfD was created for this reason, as the thesis of the article lacks verifiable basis. The rename does not yet solve the issue.

  Do we delete the Syrian civil war article just because we don't like wordings or sources?

  This article is not like the Syrian Civil War article however. It is more like an article named "Middle East Civil War" that tries to bundle all civil wars happening in the Middle East together as a part of something. Understandably so, such article would also be deleted.

  that's why I'm not getting why it's ok in one article, but not in another.

  Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. If the article's reason for existence hangs on the existence of 2025 Southeast Europe retail boycotts, then it should in fact be deleted. Brat Forelli🦊 11:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per WP:TOOSOON and WP:AtD, this may become a notable spinoff. It isn't notable enough for mainspace yet, though there's likely enough sources in other languages to establish notability DarmaniLink (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify or delete the events are clearly notable on their own, but I fail to see a reason to make them part of a single event/movement. Seems that the main thing in common is the geographical proximity, which means nothing. Some sources might in the future make the connection but for now this seems like original research. Paprikaiser (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no data to verify existence of a spring (an at least partially common sphere of influence), and as a Turkish person I can verify that protests not only don't have any connection, but also only ones that made it to Turkish news are Serbian ones, which wasn't a great interest in Turkish media.
  Kemkhachev (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, looking up "Southeast Europe protests" I can only find a couple sources grouping protests in the region as a single unitary phenomenon, and not necessarily all of the countries in the article are mentioned, some of the protests in the article are due to unrelated reasons from the majority. Super Ψ Dro 10:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but improve/split into two articles. I've already stated my arguments in the article talk page about no connection between Slovakia, Hungary and Georgia protests with the protests in Serbia, North Macedonia and Greece and the fact that the aforementioned countries are not from Southeast Europe geographically.Milosppf (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this AfD nom needs to be re-made in light of the article name being changed This AfD nom has now gotten rather confusing, because when the article was created as Balkan Spring, it was indeed unreferenced and probably a good candidate for a speedy deletion. I would have supported deletion on the basis that there are no RS besides non-notable reddit threads and forums referring to any "Balkan Spring". However, there now in the last few days appears to be RS which connects the series of protests across Southeastern Europe together analytically (the Balkan Insight and Newsweek articles). Based on that new information, I might vote to keep - but that is a totally separate question from my position on the initial "Balkan Spring" issue. There is a confluence of rationales here, some of which are no longer useful or accurate. The result is that I think it is impossible for a true consensus to form from this AfD nom in particular. Flip^andFlopped ツ 18:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed - Though I don't exactly know how this process works. Can you recreate an AfD from scratch? Mavreju (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Seconded - my main objection was to the term itself, not to the events. This was listed on ANI too due to socking which brought in many !votes DarmaniLink (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 from me too Orange-Puppy-2221 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ihsan Isik (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. Sources are not independent and reliable. Kadı Message 17:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Turkey, and United States of America. Kadı Message 17:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Louisiana, New Jersey, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Clearly fails on notability. I could not find a single publication on google scholar. Also all links on the page just lead to the front page of the university, and the website on charter schools mentions him only in passing. So basically, the entire article is uncited. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added the Google Scholar profile to the article. I see several highly-cited publications, in what I believe to be a higher citation field. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:31, 29 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 05:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Albanian film chronicles (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)

List with unclear and subjective inclusion criteria. "Film chronicle" isn't a concept with a clear and unambiguous definition -- I can surmise that the films listed here are based on historical events, but that's a characteristic that can encompass both documentaries and fictionalized narrative films. So it's not at all clear where the line would be drawn between "based on historical events" and "actually fitting the precise technical definition of a chronicle", and thus the basis for inclusion here is down to personal interpretation rather than objective reliable source classification.
Lists of "film chronicles" do not otherwise exist for any other country but Albania, and we don't even have an article about the base concept of a "film chronicle" either. And when it comes to the more clear and unambiguous classification of documentary films (which some, but not all, of the films listed here would be), List of Albanian documentary films already exists (although it does need improvement as well), so converting this into a list of documentary films isn't necessary.
Further, this is just a list of entirely unlinked titles -- but the principal function of a list is to help readers find Wikipedia articles, so a list consisting entirely of unlinked names isn't useful. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Albania. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:50, 26 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. (non-admin closure) CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leech (2025 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Draft moved back to main space without improvisation. Lacks Notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The film have 2 notable reviews and make page notable Monhiroe (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Monhiroe (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

  Can you add some more information to the sources for those reviews, like the date published and (if available) who wrote the review? That would help make them more verifiable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @ReaderofthePack: I have shown my view below. RangersRus (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: reviews, meets the usually-agreed-upon requirements for films. -Mushy Yank. 20:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:NFILM as it has received two independent reviews.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The reviews are images. But I see problem here. The page says the review from Dinamalar and Malaimalar but the reviews sort of show identical views and do not show if they are from Dinamalar and Malaimalar. Dinamalar says "Producer Anoop Ratna is playing the hero Karthi. Megha, Kannan, Nizam Calicut, Thangamuthu, Suhail, Pakar, Sandy, Abhinav, Gayatri have acted with him. There is nothing wrong with their acting. Through this story, director S.M. shows how bad people are when they are alone. He has said. The film puts forward the idea that women should not always allow themselves to be surrounded by loneliness. Cinematographer Arun T. Sasi is to be commended for showing the beauty of the forest. Music composer Kiran Jose has composed the background score well." Malaimalar says "The film tells us that women should always be aware that they should not allow themselves to feel lonely. Cinematographer Arun Sasi is commendable for bringing out the beauty of the forest. Although the characters do not speak much in the film, the background music is used throughout the film. The weakness of the film is the lack of compelling scenes." One more source from Dinakaran, is hardly a review about the film and it is very amateurly written review that is also sort of identical to above reviews that says "The actors have acted appropriately for the roles of Dr. Karthi, Megha, and Sandy Akbar. Producer Anoop Rathna himself plays the hero Karthi. Along with him, Megha, Kannan, Nizam Calicut, Thangamuthu, Suhail, Bakkar, Sandy, Abhinav, and Gayathri act. There is no flaw in their acting. Cinematographer Arun T. Sasi is commendable. Kiran Jose has composed the background music well. The film is written and directed by S.M." This does not seem to come from professional critics. @Monhiroe: and AShiv1212. RangersRus (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  First, I want to clarify that I have not added any of my own words in this; I have only translated Tamil into English and included it here. If you want, I can copy the Tamil language as it is and give it to you here. Then you can translate it into English yourself and satisfy your mind. AShiv1212 (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Research was after reading and translating and that is what I have shown in the comment with translation above. RangersRus (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  RangersRus (talk) You have raised very important aspect with deeper assessment. Agree with above views. Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Local newspaper journalists are often not big, well-known names. They are either still learning the ropes or write like copy editors. For example, if you look at Kannada film reviews from 2011, you’ll notice that 3-4 newspapers or news channels would simply copy each other’s content.

  More importantly, smaller films don’t get as much news coverage as they deserve, and whatever coverage they do receive often results in reviews of this kind AShiv1212 (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to further establish consensus in available sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Film has references for reliable sources and passes WP:NFILM
  Anish Viswa 04:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a notable film that just came out this year two weeks ago. I see it in IMDB and think it will be reviewed more as time goes on. Ramos1990 (talk)

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!} 22:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Episcopal Church of the Resurrection (Pleasant Hill, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a non-notable church that is written in promotional tone. I was unable to find any significant sources about it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - This article was written in 2012 by User:Resurrection Pleasant Hill CA. The original author was indefinitely blocked in 2013. As with WhoIsCentreLeft above, I did not find available sources on the net. — Maile (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - for having the church itself write the article, and the church failing GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't think it's G11-worthy but it's not notable. Nowhere close to WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dclemens1971 and my own longstanding standards. Without going through the entire list, it's less than 100 years old, it's not on the National Register of Historic Places, there have been no notable congregants or rectors associated with it, it's not notable for its music, nor have any notable funerals been held there. On the other hand, "It was designed by a notable architect, and/or is notable for its architecture," which saves it from speedy deletion. That's far below what I expect from a notable and historic church. For what it's worth, I have worshiped in that diocese, but have never been to that particular church. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if no RS citations can be added to support or salvage the article. even a brief search on the net has been unable to find any WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Villkomoses (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article has been here since 2013 and has not improved. Seems the creator was very close to the subject. Ramos1990 (talk)

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 per WP:BLP1E. RL0919 (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kate King (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 do not see that any of the citations are substantial enough to establish notability, & could not find anything better; search throws up other people with the same name TheLongTone (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Sourced entirely to Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, and an interview; the only sources not those are not in fact about this person. The YouTube account has been emptied, and the Twitter posts are marked as "parody". This falls far below the sourcing bar for biographies. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of significant coverage - everything except one incident is entirely sourced by social media. That one incident is terrible, and sourced by BBC, but is a classic WP:BLP1E situation. I'm not excusing any racist jokes: I'm saying it's just not notable. Bearian (talk)
• Delete: Subject lacks the sustained coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Appears to be a WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. RL0919 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Useless disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER. The primary topic article already has a hatnote, the other article links back to the primary topic in its first sentence. PROD was contested back in 2013 with this edit (warning: NSFW), so I guess this has to go through AfD. Back then there were two other "Nesquik" articles, but both now redirect to the main article. Toadspike [Talk] 15:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for simplification, also found List of Nestlé brands that does seems to already differentiate the Names apart like Nestlé, Nesquik and Nesquik (cereal).Villkomoses (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Disambiguations. Toadspike [Talk] 15:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A disambiguation page is not required. All uses are mentioned at the primary topic article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:18, 30 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 Heilongjiang University as an AtD. The sole "keep" !voter did not convince others that the newly added sources constituted WP:SIGCOV. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harbin Jewish Research Center (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 did not help; not notable ORG per NORG, no relialbe sources. Cinder painter (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and China. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Heilongjiang University as WP:ATD. Longhornsg (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Heilongjiang University per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The subject's Chinese name is "哈尔滨犹太研究中心". A quick web search turned up some coverage. [20][21] I will look further later, but this article shouldn't be redirected without any analysis of available Chinese-language sources. Toadspike [Talk] 09:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (Since I haven't made this clear yet, this should be redirected per my comments below.) Toadspike [Talk] 10:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Redirect to Heilongjiang University: It seems that the center is also known as 黑龙江省社会科学院犹太研究所,[22] but searching for both names in Chinese still does not yield anything useful in my Google search. The first source provided by Toadspike (from the West Asia and Africa journal via Sohu) is excellent, but the second one, along with most of the news articles I found, primarily discusses various projects or works that the Center has been involved in. Most of these articles only mention it in passing and could hardly be used to expand the article. I believe a redirect to Heilongjiang University is a sensible ATD per WP:NOPAGE at this point, but I noticed that a news article mentioned the researchers from the Center were interviewed by Der Spiegel,[23] so there may still be some German or other language sources available. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 13:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Spiegel piece appears to be this one, with this later piece quoting a professor of this Center at the end. Probably not sigcov for the center, but Jews in Harbin certainly seems like a notable topic. Toadspike [Talk] 21:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Since both articles are paywalled and written in a language I am not familiar with, I will defer to your source assessment, Toadspike. I agree that Jews in Harbin appears to be a promising topic, and it could serve as a better redirect/merge target if an article is created in the future. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 08:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Prince of Erebor If you're interested, you can access them via archive.today: [24] and [25]. Toadspike [Talk] 10:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Toadspike! So the first article only mentions the Center once, stating that it was established by the Heilongjiang Academy of Social Sciences in 2000. The second article mentions it only when introducing interviewee Zhang Tiejiang as a professor of the research center. Both are indeed passing mentions. ——👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 12:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP there is significant coverage of this center which passes GNG. Added citations and text to the article Lilyonthepond (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The newly added Chinese sources are essentially the same ones I found, all of which mention the Center only once or twice in passing, focusing primarily on their research projects. I took a look at the English sources as well, and in the first Jerusalem Post article, the Center is mentioned only once in relation to a synagogue model they built, while the second JP article does not even refer to the Center by name. Both Pan and Kolterman's books mention the Center only once in their research, and the US-China Review, which seems to be the most "comprehensive" source so far, contains just two sentences documenting the establishment of the Center and an exhibition it hosted while tracing the history of Jewish studies in Harbin. Everything currently cited in the article and what I have encountered so far only mentions the Center in passing and hardly qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 08:48, 30 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 14:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PFH Private University of Applied Sciences (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)

All references are from primary sources, and the article sounds promotional/advert Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A search on JSTOR for "PFH Private University of Applied Sciences" returned only 1 result, suggesting limited scholarly coverage. HerBauhaus (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 26 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 draftify‎. Consensus was against leaving in mainspace, but there was no support beyond the nominator for outright deletion. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Australia Jillaroos tour of England (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)

Unverifiable. The two sources given for the relevant information[26][27] both discuss England touring Australia, not the other way around. The article has mostly irrelevant information, and nothing about the supposed tour of the Australian women in England in 2025, and it doesn't seem to be easily verifiable either. Fram (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league, England, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article is indeed mostly verifiable. Ref no. 1 states that the tour will happen (albeit it in Australia). Refs 5-7 all state how the "GBR or ENG" will be applicable to both men's, women's, and wheelchair. Ref 12 stating game 1 of the tour will be in Las Vegas, plus Refs 12-15 about that game itself. All in all 8/15 refs explicitly state the happening of the women's tour and 7/15 giving wider context.

Only thing uncertain, is the location, as refs for host change (in men's article) don't say anything explicit about the women's tour. With that I could see an argument for draftification until such confirmation, but the article has too many sources for it to be deleted. Mn1548 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But there are no sources at all about a women's tour in England, right? So how is that "too many to be deleted"? Fram (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No sources about a women's tour in England, but plenty about the tour itself. If anything, given the specific of what is in the sources, articles should probably be renamed backed to "Lionesses tour of Australia". My point is that deleting an article due to uncertainty about the specific location of a tour is ridiculous given that their are plenty of sources about the tour itself. Especially when the first game has already been played. Mn1548 (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You created "2025 Australia Jillaroos tour of England" without knowing whether they would actually tour England or not? Really? And you consider the deletion "ridiculous" and claim that the article is "mostly verifiable" because, well, it has no information about the actual subject, a tour of England. Good luck with your bolded "keep" vote, I have to say... Fram (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...an article created as a result of a concensus to split from another article which itself passed the draft process by another editor reviewing it. The lack a a concrete source for ONE aspect of the article SHOULD NOT constitute deletion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "ONE" aspect is the actual subject of the article, no biggie... Fram (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So when Euro 2020 was in the grey zone of will it be 2020 or 2021 should the Wikipedia article have been deleted because we weren't sure? No, regardless of where the series will take place 90/95% of the information is still relevant. A page move and editing the article to represent the changes should occur, as it does literally everywhere else on Wikipedia. Mn1548 (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that tournament which had been completely planned, for which dozens of qualification matches had been played, for which probably tickets had been sold, and so on? You really mean to compare such an event to something which has vaguely been announced in October and where nothing more concrete has happened since (and no, a March match in Vegas is not "something concrete" for a tour in England months later if at all)? Fram (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further, another editor has since found a source stating the the host change will also affect the women's series. Mn1548 (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Previous WikiProject discussion on splitting the article from 2025 Kangaroo tour of England and France. Mn1548 (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is an unusual situation. I can't think, off-hand, of a case where a tour was announced then one side says "hang on, can we make it the other way round", then the first game gets played with the rest of the tour still unconfirmed. I've edited the article to make it clear this is a putative tour at the moment but with sources showing that it is intended to be happen and in England. If it doesn't happen then we can consider if the events surrounding the whole history make it a notable event or not. Nthep (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The "best" source makes it clear that "The tour hasn't been confirmed and planning remains in the preliminary stages", and now, five months later, nothing more is known, but still we need to keep an article? Massive WP:CRYSTAL failure. Fram (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not crystal when the event has already started and Las Vegas was always considered to be part of the series. Nthep (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The "event" which hasn't been confirmed, which hasn't been planned, and where the match that did happen wasn't anywhere near England? Uh, yes, that's textbook WP:CRYSTAL. There is nothing concrete to suggest that there will be a 2025 tour of England, all we have are vague plans and a match months earlier in a different country (I mean, it's not as if the squad is supposed to travel from Vegas to England...). Fram (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Hasn't been planned"? By that logic the men's tour wasn't planned yesterday and when through the entire process overnight. I feel its also worth noting that given the rate of which international rugby league tournaments are being announced at the moment (4 in the past 8 days) this discussion might end up being completely redundant. Also, Ntheps point is a good one. The women's Ashes has already started, its already 1-0 Australia. Its not like this article is only based of the sourcing from 2023 stating that their will be a tour at some point in two years, it's actually begun. Mn1548 (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The tour of England has begun? That's news... And "planned" as in, we have dates and places. Here we don't have anything. At all. "this discussion might end up being completely redundant." Obviously, so what? Again, that's a WP:CRYSTAL argument, "but it may be announced in the next few hours, days, weeks!". Fram (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Like I said it's unusual, having 2/3rds of a series still unconfirmed when 1/3rd has already happened. Rename the article 2025 Women's rugby league Ashes then the "but it's not in England" which appears to be your main concern goes away. If the rest happens then great we have a three match series to write about, if it doesn't then we have "what was envisaged as three but ended up as only one and why" to write about. Nthep (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's even hard to find sources that describe the Vegas match as part of The Ashes, actually... Nothing in the Irish Independent[28] or the Daily Mail, BBC[29], Fox, Total Rugby League, ... nothing about this being part of a series or of being part of the Ashes. Fram (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Quote from Rhodri Jones, managing director of RL Commercial in September "especially as we have the Ashes Tours against Australia in 2025, which of course begins with a historic fixture in Las Vegas for England Women against the Jillaroos."^[1] Nthep (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So some commercial director tries to sell it as an Ashes tour, and no (or very few certainly) reliable independent sources actually adopt/believe/use this, and treat it like a separate match, a one-off, instead. Good thing we go with what the reliable, independent sources say then. Fram (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  IRL the sports governing body said "The Las Vegas fixture will count as part of the historic Ashes series between the two nations"^[2] acknowledging that the same article (from July 2024) goes on to say England in Australia. Per WP:PRIMARY that looks to me like a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" Nthep (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "The Las Vegas fixture will count as part of the historic Ashes series between the two nations, which will continue when England travel to Australia at the end of the 2025 season." So who knows whether that still applies? If the series no longer happens, is the lone match then still part of (or the whole of) the Ashes, or not? All one can say is that it was intended in July 2024 to be part of the Ashes series. Fram (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify until we have confirmation of this all actually going forward. The text shouldn't be lost now, but we shouldn't be detailing what for now is merely a proposed tour in mainspace. Nathannah • 📮 19:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify for now – I would love Wikipedia to have better coverage of the women's game, but this is limited by the quality/quantity of sources available – It can be moved back if/when there are more sources to confirm details, but as was noted in Rugby Leaguer & League Express after the Vegas match: "There was supposed to be a women's Ashes series this year, but talk of that dissipated very quickly. I've asked the RFL, the NRL and the international board what's going on and no one seems to know" (No.3741, 10 March 2025, p.9). EdwardUK (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Article can be moved back into mainspace if and when we have confirmation that the series is going ahead. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:51, 28 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 14:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ugochukwu Chime (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)

lacks significant independent coverage, relies on non-reliable sources, or serves as promotional content rather than a neutral Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: For those who care, this is just a nonsensical effort to advertise one CEO, lacks a byline and fails WP:IRS. Overall, the subject fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: One of sixty CEO's in Nigeria is a flimsy claim to notability, when they're already know for using puffy language. I can't find anything further about this individual, I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet more WP:NOTLINKEDIN cruft for another non-notable business leader who just takes credit for things everyone else in their company does. Nathannah • 📮 17:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. – References are passing mentions, unreliable, etc. Not enough news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources are not independent to satisfy the general notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article was created by a confirmed sockpuppet identified in the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lazy-restless/Archive. The creation by a blocked user tied to the "Lazy-restless" investigation suggests potential WP:POV pushing. The subject does not meet WP:GNG, as no sources provide sufficient coverage. NXcrypto Message 12:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Major portion of this article sources copied by sock from deleted articles, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar Aur Muhammad Saheb, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avtar aur Muhammad sahib (book). It was also spammed by Lazy-restless IPs and socks, e.g., Hindi Wiki (history) using IP 202.134.10.142, IP 202.134.10.136, IP 202.134.10.131, IP 202.134.11.228, and Assad Jibran (blocked as a Lazy-restless sock). Created by Lazy-restless on Malayalam Wiki (history), Turkish Wiki (history), Fiji Hindi Wiki (history), Malay Wiki (history), Urdu Wiki (history), Arabic Wiki (history), Punjabi Wiki (history with IP 103.66.169.1), Sanskrit Wiki (history with IP 202.134.11.228 and IP 103.230.104.41), and Kashmiri Wiki (history with IP 103.230.106.29). All tied to the banned user IP range, and the majority of these IPs are blocked. NXcrypto Message 13:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Hinduism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I see no links in Jstor or Gscholar about this individual, the rest of the sourcing doesn't seem appropriate for a scholar. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Still not notable. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No sources are indicative of the person being a scholar or for that matter being notable Flyingphoenixchips (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I received an email from User:Abdullahil Hai saying, "Please see [30]". Just noting this here so people are aware of any potential canvassing. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I did also. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Abdullahil Hai has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. NXcrypto Message 04:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the evidence I presented at the first AfD which was closed as no consensus and “a train wreck” by Liz. Read it and your eyes will bleed: meatpuppets and sockpuppets galore with lots of personal attacks. The nominator was subsequently banned. I will try to dig up my refs and post them here tomorrow. The subject of this article tried to find common theological ground between Islam and Hinduism which was anathema to partisans on both sides. This AfD is off to a more civil start — fingers crossed. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggest an admin lock this to ECP editing only to prevent trouble. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So far, so good. If it becomes a big problem we can protect it then. -- asilvering (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  canvassing ? NXcrypto Message 19:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @NXcrypto, see my comment in this discussion yesterday (above). A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The argument that was mainly used by the Keep supporters during the last AfD was that the subject is a winner of Rashtrapati Award, but that award is political, not an academic award. There are no sources that have justified the existence of this article. CharlesWain (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:NAUTHOR. I don't see anything convincing in the last AfD. This individual is yet to win a notable academic honour. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, enough referencing for the article. Any conflicting in contents should be addressed in the article. --محمود (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP- हिमाल सुबेदी (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and probably salt given what an absolute mess this is. 90 percent of the article is about the subject's most well-known book, which according to the last four AFD discussions [31] [32] [33] [34] is almost certainly not notable. Take that away and there's no case for meeting WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC. Astaire (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Recruitment (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)

Company is not notable - Google search reveals no reliable news and few other sources. Existing references over-reliant on company-derived PR material (plus non-reliable LinkedIn and company website). Paul W (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Clearly fails GNG. Delete as per nomination. Given sources are not significant neither secondary. Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I haven't been able to find any independent coverage. Toadspike [Talk] 22:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find sources about the company in my searches for sources. Maxim Recruitment does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:ORGSIG and WP:ORGCRITE, no valid secondary sourcing. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article has been tagged since 2010 as relying excessively on primary sources. Looking over it now, the only source cited in the article is Jo Freeman's essay "The Tyranny of Structurelessness", which it quotes so heavily from that this article is effectively a copyright violation (see Earwig results).

Looking for the term "democratic structuring" as defined by Freeman on Google Scholar, none of the sources appear to give the concept any analysis that is independent of wider commentary on the essay.[35] It appears there could be basis for an article on democratic structuring outside of its definition by Freeman, but this would be an entirely different article.[36]

Due to the extreme problems with this article, I'm nominating it for deletion. "Democratic structuring" could be redirected to the article on The Tyranny of Structurelessness, but in my opinion, this should only be done after this version is deleted due to copyvio. Grnrchst (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Social science. Grnrchst (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Usually in cases like these I would vote to redirect or merge the article, maybe to the author of the concept (Jo Freeman), but there is nothing of substance that is not problematic (copyvio) to merge, and the target has nothing in-depth about the topic. Yue🌙 18:12, 27 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. No prejudice against further review if the subject makes a request via WP:VRT. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject has requested the page be deleted. Jesswade88 (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally re-listed as the original nom didn't make it to the AfD log. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Medicine, and United States of America. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Jesswade88, How do you know that she wants her article removed? Is there anything personal that she wants removed or redacted? Bearian (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Dr. Moses has personally requested that this whole profile be removed. Can this please be done as soon as possible? 134.174.21.28 (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The three fellowships and the hospital positions show notability, she has a large list in Gscholar, but I can't pull up her h-index. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:ANYBIO due to multiple awards. Subject is a professor at Harvard Medical School, has received prestigious honors like election to the National Academy of Medicine, and has made groundbreaking discoveries in the molecular mechanisms of tumor growth.Mysecretgarden (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Jesswade88 do you know why the subject wants the article deleted? As it stands it seems like a pretty bland and unobjectionable bio - no personal details, rather positive. (I swear there's a policy on what to do if the article subject requests deletion, but I can't find it now. I believe it is "presumption in favor of deletion if marginally notable, otherwise keep"?)
• Procedural keep: I think Moses is notable based on evidence presented above, but I also generally weigh WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE heavily in the case of someone non-prominent. However, we don't have any evidence presented of an actual request from Moses, just an editor and an IP saying Moses has made this request. In that case, I think we should "keep" with no prejudice against having another discussion should we get confirmation that Moses is requesting deletion. To provide that confirmation, Moses may follow the WP:VRT procedure listed at WP:BLPHELP. If we get confirmation from VRT in this debate, would someone ping me as I will be happy to reconsider my !vote at that time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kenta Kurishima (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 was previously deleted by prod so nominating. Played 22 times professionally [37] before dropping down to non league. Article has primary sources. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Singapore. RossEvans19 (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia relies too much on press release news. No evidence of SIGCOV. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:42, 27 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 14:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobuhiro Uetani (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)

Tried to propose, previously denied. Made 12 appearances [38] in Singapore before dropping down into non league. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Singapore. RossEvans19 (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No hope based on the (lack of) achivements and the lack of sources in Japanese Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Geschichte. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:42, 27 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 Asaram. Valereee and others are correct in asserting that it doesn't matter whether the festival is recognized, fabricated, new, inauthentic or societally risky. However, I see a rough consensus among those who engaged with the sources and are familiar with our notability guidelines that the sources that are reliable did not offer SIGCOV beyond the scope of the proposed merge target. Owen× ☎ 12:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsi Pujan Diwas (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)

As per Hindu tradition, no recognized observance is known as Tulsi Pujan Diwas. This so-called event is a fabricated concept introduced and propagated by a convicted individual to influence public perception and shape a narrative to serve personal or ideological interests. True Hindu customs and rituals have evolved over centuries through deeply rooted spiritual and cultural practices, and any attempt to artificially engineer or impose new observances without a historical or scriptural basis raises concerns. Such efforts to modify religious beliefs and practices through deliberate social engineering not only lack authenticity but also pose a risk of distorting traditional faith and misleading followers. Therefore, the legitimacy and intent behind such artificially created events remain highly questionable. Charlie (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and India. Charlie (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Keep or merge to Asaram I found one academic reference but it's from a small local journal whose provenance I have no information about. [39] It does show up as a reference in a few books but only ever in the context of Asaram Bapu there is some news coverage of the festival but all of it comes from local press which means it's not particularly widespread coverage. I could be persuaded to keep if there are sources I'm missing but this is a marginal case. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  [40] doesn't look local. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very little of what you (OP) said is reason to delete a WP-article. Failing WP:N is the basic reason to delete. If there are WP:RS that notes criticism of this festival, perhaps that can be added too. Per Tulsi Pujan Diwas 2024: Date, rituals, and significance (India Today), other views than yours exist. That said, there may be reason to delete, or merge to Tulasi in Hinduism or another article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to Tulasi in Hinduism seems an appropriate outcome here. That concedes there's something notable here but possibly not enough to sustain an article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refining my !vote on the basis of the discussion below. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Hinduism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll stick to sources in English, it's harder for me to guess WP:RS-ness of others. I looked at these:
  • India-West 2017 "Tulsi Pujan Diwas Celebrated by Hundreds in Bay Area". It's in the WP-library, short but on-topic.
  • The Economic Times 2022 [41]
  • The Hans India 2023 [42]
  • India Today 2024 [43]
  • The Times of India 2024 [44]
  • I also found an interesting comment in The Hindu I put in the article[45].
  • Per these, I'm at weak keep. It would be nice to have something more academic, but it's a relatively new thing and I'm told the originator is otherwise engaged. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I too would like to see more academic sources, but it looks like there are somewhat reliable sources on the topic as described above. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 18:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Asaram Bapu, where an appropriate sentence can be added. We have enough sources to attest that Asaram Bapu promulgated this festival in 2014 (eg, [46]) but little independent reliable sourcing of anything else.

Despite superficial appearances of the sources listed above, there is no evidence of the "festival" being celebrated widely or its notability independent of Asaram Bapu. Most/all of news articles cited are mere re-publications of press releases and third-party content as should be obvious from reading the puff-pieces or noting the disclaimer at the bottom of the Economic Times article. See also WP:NEWSORGINDIA on how this is a common, often unmarked, practice in Indian media and does not contribute to the subject's notability.

And this article in a newly formed journal with a single issue is neither a reliable source, nor is it talking about the subject of the wikipedia article; the "Tulsi Pujan Diwas" it is referring to falls on "eleventh day of the bright fortnight of Kartik month (also known as Dev Uthani Ekadashi)", ie roughly mid-November as opposed to the Christmas-alternative established by Asaram Bapu. Abecedare (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to Tulasi Vivaha, which is the actual event according to Hindu traditions. Charlie (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources found by GGS seem to indicate that there is sufficient notability for this to be kept, if barely, and the nomination feels much more like a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS rather than based in Wikipedia policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The origin of Tulsi Pujan Diwas is very recent; it started by Asaram on 25 December 2014 (Hindi). Despite this, he and his sect have been declared fake by the Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad, the apex organization of Hindu sants (saints) and sadhus (ascetics) in India. This event should not be mistaken for Tulasi Vivaha, which is, in fact, the primary and sole event observed by Hindus on the day of Kartika Purnima. Charlie (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It doesn't matter whether the observance is recognized. It doesn't matter whether it's fabricated, or why, or by whom. It doesn't matter whether it's new, lacks authenticity or poses a societal risk. What matters is whether it is notable. Valereee (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Being receptive to Valereee and GGS' comments I'm changing my !vote from weak deletion to weak keep or merge. I still feel the citations might be a bit scant for a full article but it's clear there's at least some minimal notability here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Asaram, Tulasi in Hinduism, and/or Tulsi. The religious significance of the plant in various branches of Hinduism isn't in doubt, and there is lots of source material about it, including scholarly sources (which indeed is why Tulasi in Hinduism exists). But much of the material I'm seeing related to this title refers to the general phenomenon of religious belief or ritual related to the plant, not to this specific observance. The article as it stands has three sentences related specifically to this observance, and I cannot find anything else citeable to reliable, intellectually independent sources. As such a standalone article is not justified: the announcement of the observance can be sufficiently documented at Asaram, and the ritual at Tulasi in Hinduism: the satire does not strike me as encyclopedic. TL:DR; Contra several colleagues above, there isn't SIGCOV specific to this observance, only to the place of this plant in Hindu belief and practice. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Asaram. It is still far behind the minimum requirement when it comes to meeting WP:GNG. Dympies (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article on Tulsi Pujan Diwas fails to meet Wikipedia’s core policies for inclusion, particularly the General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG), as it lacks substantial coverage from multiple, independent, and reliable sources. The observance itself was created in 2014 by Asaram Bapu, making it a recent and artificially introduced event rather than an organically evolved tradition within Hinduism. Unlike established Hindu festivals such as Tulasi Vivaha, which has deep-rooted religious and scriptural significance, Tulsi Pujan Diwas exists only within the sphere of Asaram Bapu’s influence and has not gained broad cultural or religious acceptance outside his following. The sources cited in support of the article are largely press releases and promotional content, violating Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable sourcing (WP:NEWSORGINDIA) and neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), as Indian media often republish unverified statements without editorial scrutiny. This observance has not been the subject of scholarly research or detailed academic discussion, which further weakens its claim to notability, as Wikipedia prioritizes topics with long-term, independent significance rather than temporary, sect-specific practices. Additionally, per Wikipedia’s event notability policy (WP:EVENT), Tulsi Pujan Diwas does not have a sustained impact or independent historical validation, making its existence on Wikipedia tenuous at best. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many news papers are deliver the massage to society celebration of "Tulsi Pujan Divas" on the 25 December .^[3]

Times of India a public authentic news paper also says importance of Tulsi Pujan Divas and were celebrated by uncountable people last year and from many past years. ^[4]. According to you if imagine only a particular following are celebrating a particular festival widely in world on same day then are they not part of world or countable in world? But Reality it that in society ,government Schools, collage, Hindu's home are celebrating 25 December Tulsi Pujan Divas and many others religions also worship and lightning lamp to live plant of Tulsi instead plastic tree. lot of videos are available on internet in behalf of celebrating Tulsi Pujan Divas on 25 December.

• delete per policy based explanation by Flyingphoenixchips. This is not actually traditional/historical event/day. Started by a self proclaimed guru with a large following. Recently, Indian digital media has become churnilism, they cover literally anything. This particular topic lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Another piece of coverage, [47], Sabrang Communications 2020. I'm not sure what WP:GNG-weight it has, but it's certainly independent of the subject. 2014 RSN-discussion:[48] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If this was started in 2014, 10 years should be wide enough ambit to independently define notability of this event outside WP:RECENTISM . We can find coverage for Tulsi Pujan Diwas in news articles and journals. For example this paper^[5] published in 2022 primarily around Origin and significance of Tulsi discusses existence of Tulsi Poojan Diwas and finds no harm in dedicating one more day to her Nisingh.8 (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nisingh.8: The "journal" IJIRT is a paid-publishing scam and the article you cite is gibberish with content cut-n-pasted randomly from the internet, eg from this 2019 astrology site, including the sentence Talk to our expert for more information. Abecedare (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  According to them they're approved by University Grants Commission (India). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They aren't fwiw (can check here after registration). Don't know if the screenshot is doctored or if their registration was canceled at some point. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just so everyone knows, the University Grants Commission (UGC) in India has stopped maintaining the UGC-CARE journal list because many low-quality and fake journals had entered it. I recently worked on updating its Wikipedia page. It's best to avoid journals that were on this discontinued list. Charlie (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some text copied from here, which seems might be interesting for WP-use. Actually, it seems a clear GNG-point, DailyO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Many journals approved by the University grants commissions are predatory. Kindly see: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/02/05/indias-fight-against-predatory-journals-an-interview-with-professor-bhushan-patwardhan/

  UGC list means nothing @Abecedare@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per WP:RS event seems to be notable. It has substantial coverage from multiple sources including BBC in 2107^[6]. These 2023^[7] and 2024^[8] articles also cover and describe rituals and significance of Tulsi Pujan Diwas Krishnpriya123 (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The BBC is a good find, another GNG-point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The BBC Hindi article does not establish notability for Tulsi Pujan Diwas under Wikipedia’s guidelines. While BBC is generally a reliable source per WP:RS, the specific article in question fails to provide significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. It is a brief news report that mentions Tulsi Pujan Diwas in passing rather than analyzing its historical significance, cultural impact, or widespread observance. Per WP:ROUTINE, one-time or minor coverage of an event does not establish lasting notability. The article does not indicate that Tulsi Pujan Diwas has recognition from major religious authorities, government bodies, or independent scholars. Furthermore, Wikipedia requires multiple independentsources providing in-depth analysis, not just a single fleeting mention in a general news report. Therefore, this source alone is insufficient to justify a standalone Wikipedia article. @Krishnpriya123 Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The BBC article does provide significant coverage (some context, even), like several other linked in this afd. It's not, per definition, by itself enough for WP:GNG since that guidance states "multiple sources are generally expected", but it's an argument in favor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per GNG, Significant coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail". The BBC Hindi article does that, it also does not stop at brief news coverage, but covers in detail the viewpoints from the originator on starting of this day, historical context on when/why this was started. It also covers additional viewpoints of Minister, GOI Mahesh Sharma, Central Government Minister Giriraj Singh, and general social media buzz that this event created. BBC also analyzes this concept in conjunction with other events in India on same day.

  Agree, single news source should not stand up complete article, but I found BBC when searching through news articles on the topic and together with other sources, added my keep-points here. Krishnpriya123 (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Churnalist coverage by Indian media doesn't mean much, see WP:NEWSORGINDIA, Indian media would cover everything as news if they get paid and therefore coverage from Indian media should be discarded. There's no coverage about this day in scholarly sources. CharlesWain (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The festival seems to be celebrated widely and has recognized observance. Many schools include Tulsi Pujan Diwas in their yearly calendar as extra curricular event or celebration. As such this event finds notability and seems to be of impact to audience in India.
  • https://www.millenniumschools.co.in/cheeka/gallery/worshippingtulsi-considered-very-auspicious-hindutraditions-many-people-start-their-day
  • https://www.surajschool.com/blog/tulsi-diwas-celebration/
  • https://www.happyvalleyrohtak.com/uncategorized/tulsi-pujan-divas/
  • https://bohrapublicschool.org/portfolio/bhagwat-gita-mahotsav-and-tulsi-pujan-diwas-2023/ Rupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The provided sources are school websites, which are self-published and fail to meet the standards of WP:RS (Reliable Sources). Wikipedia requires coverage from reputable third-party sources such as national newspapers, academic publications, or government records, none of which are present here. As per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, routine celebrations in schools do not inherently establish encyclopedic significance. Additionally, the lack of substantial coverage in independent sources suggests that Tulsi Pujan Diwas is either a recent or localized event, failing the requirement of sustained notability per WP:EVENT. Without evidence of historical significance, cultural impact, or widespread recognition beyond isolated mentions, the article does not justify inclusion on Wikipedia. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Rupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My listing above was to indicate that if multiple schools have adopted this event across different geo-locations this can be counted as continued impact and significance. Which means this event was not invented by the creator and is only known to creator. But unrelated or unaffiliated groups have also observed this event. Rupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article meets the WP:GNG criteria. The deletion discussion seems to have been initiated with a limited understanding of the subject and certain incorrect assumptions or WP:DLS. The initiator's perspective does not fully align with the core concept of this article and its significance. Notably, this topic has gained vast recognition, with widespread observance in schools, colleges and public spaces. Multiple reliable and independent sources have been shared providing substantial coverage, reinforcing its notability and importance. PragyaanRover (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Not traditional/historical event/day is not a ground for deletion. As such, Wikipedia is not a historical archive alone. Can find independent coverage such as here^[9] or here^[10] PriyasVP (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is actually an excellent demonstration of why we shouldn't have a standalone article. First off, both these articles have virtually identical content: they are clearly repackaging the same announcement or press release. Beyond that, though, nothing in these articles is specific to this observance: all of the content is related to Tulasi in Hinduism, plus some medicine-adjacent content that we cannot use because of WP:MEDRS. Even an article ostensibly about "Tulsi Pujan Diwas" has no content about this observance. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Almost all of the coverage is typical run of the mill churnalism associated with Indian media (WP:NEWSORGINDIA). As per the guidance, almost all of it should be discarded and when done very little remains about this made up day. There are no scholarly sources covering this topic, it can also be redirected to Asaram#Teachings_and_views, where it is given the WP:DUE weight as required by the policies. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The topic is not notable outside Asaram. ZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 11:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Tulsi Pujan Diwas is widely celebrated across India, and it is covered in multiple independent sources [49]. Wiki is not a place to hide a widely adopted concept just because the initiator of that concept is under question, This is especially to focus on the fact that the initiator of this discussion is forgetting the neutral point of view WP:NPOV policy GarimaSuha (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is not a promotional article. This is a notable event. The discussion is not on Asaram Bapu, reminding the I don't like it Policy of Wiki WP:IDONTLIKEIT If a person was convicted does not mean all his initiatives will be ignored.

Here I will focus on historical validation of this event, as was pointed out by one person who voted for delete:

1. Coverage year 2017: This event was started in 2014 as stated by BBC in its report of 25th Dec 2017 [50]

2. Year 2019: Tulsi Puja Instead of Christmas Celebration: People Raise Their Voice on Social Media [51]

3. Year 2020: Bulandshahr Women Celebrated Tulsi Pujan Diwas [52]

4. Year 2021: Satya Sanatan Sanstha Organizes Padyatra on Tulsi Pujan Diwas[53] [54]

5. Year 2022: Tulsi Pujan Diwas 2022: Date, December 25 – Significance, Puja Vidhi, and Remedies[55][56]

6. Year 2023: News coverage to remind people to know Tulsi Pujan Vidhi on Tulsi Pujan Diwas[57] [58]

7. Year 2024: When is Tulsi Pujan Diwas? Auspicious Timing and Puja Vidhi [59][60]

Year after year this event is getting significant coverage as needed per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, this is to prove verifiability of this article WP:V Sethi752 (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Tulsi Pujan Diwas article coverage by BBC is a reliable source as per WP:RSPBBC^[11].
  • Coverage by Economic Times: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/tulsi-pujan-diwas-2022-check-date-puja-vidhi-and-significance-of-this-hindu-festival/articleshow/96495420.cms?from=mdr
  • https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/tulsi-pujan-diwas-2023-date-timings-rituals-significance-of-this-holy-day/articleshow/106261017.cms?from=mdr
  • Coverage by Zee News: https://zeenews.india.com/culture/tulsi-pujan-diwas-2024-date-history-rituals-spiritual-importance-and-health-benefits-2835697.html
  • These news coverages by reliable sources prove the notability of this article.
  • Coverage in book ^[12] **** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transcend disillusion (talk • contribs)

  • Note, as was pointed out earlier, the disclaimer at the end of the Economic Times article. And the book that is being cited is a non-RS self-publication.

  Unfortunately, despite the WP:NEWSORGINDIA-refspam cited at this AFD, I have yet to see any independent coverage beyond the BBC article and the commentary and humour pieces in DailyO and The Hindu respectively, all which explicitly link it to Asaram and the latter two roll their eyes at the festival. Hence my !vote to merge this article with Asaram. Abecedare (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is the list of few independent coverages which do not explicitly mention about Asaram Bapu. Since as per BBC too, this event got started in 2014, so it is a widely adopted concept now, since Tulsi is anyways sacred for Hindu community! And I don't see any point in getting this page merged. It must exist as an independent page since this is a cultural festival event.

  Brief List:

  1. https://zeenews.india.com/culture/tulsi-pujan-diwas-2024-date-history-rituals-spiritual-importance-and-health-benefits-2835697.html#:~:text=Tulsi%20Pujan%20Diwas%20is%20not,the%20mortal%20and%20divine%20realms. (It states Tulsi Pujan Diwas, observed annually, celebrates the worship of the sacred Tulsi plant, a cornerstone of Hindu tradition known for its spiritual, medicinal, and symbolic importance)

  2. https://marathi.hindustantimes.com/religion/tulsi-pujan-25-december-2024-puja-vidhi-in-marathi-know-the-do-or-donts-141735133643954.html

  3. https://zeenews.india.com/culture/tulsi-pujan-diwas-2021-is-celebrated-on-christmas-heres-why-2422511.html

  These are just few independent sources, there are many more GarimaSuha (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These sources look very much like WP:NEWSORGINDIA would apply. It's really becoming clear that the best choice is to merge with Asaram. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 . RL0919 (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I can find no in-depth coverage of this academic, and cannot see how they meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 26 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 05:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Family Coalition Party of British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Defunct provincial political party whose electoral results never exceeded half a percent of the popular vote. There is therefore no obvious claim of notability. The one reference provided, a book written by UBC professor Chris MacKenzie, does describe the background and founders of the party in-depth. However, I could not find multiple examples of in-depth coverage by reliable sources, and I do not think the coverage from MacKenzie's work alone is enough to establish long lasting notability. Yue🌙 08:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 08:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:29, 26 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 14:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sources are related to the respective films produced by the subject and do not provide any coverage of the production house itself. None of the sources in the article provide significant coverage of the subject. Subject does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:SIGCOV. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Business, India, and Tamil Nadu. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I am unable to locate any English language significant coverage of the topic, however there remains a strong possibility that sigcov may exist in a language other than English. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These types of film production companies in India never have any independent, significant coverage about them in their local language either. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you wanted to come off as credible "never" isn't the word to use as it immediately makes you seem unserious, you're either being hyperbolic or you're just wrong. Consider using "rarely" instead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I intentionally used never because, in practice, these production companies in India do not receive independent, significant coverage in their local language. By 'these', I mean production companies that pop up without any significant backing, often founded by newcomers with little to no experience in the field, making it difficult for them to sustain themselves. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it never or is it in practice they don't? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In practice, it hasn't happened till now, so we can discuss the nuances of the wording once someone sets a precedent. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Have done notable films and production is notable Monhiroe (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The company can not be notable just because it has done a lot of notable films. Please provide some sources as to how the production is notable. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The topic simply does not meet the notability guidelines. As far as I know, I could not find any source, whether in English or Tamil or any other language, that discusses the subject in detail. Most (if not all) sources used in the article and on the search engine mostly talk about the film(s) in question and not the production company alone. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Fails to meet WP:NCORP with no indepth coverage on the organization itself. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 14:20, 31 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 14:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Navrajvir Singh (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)

Lacks Notability. Given Sources are primary. No significant coverage in Independent Sources. Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Entertainment, and India. Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO in any way. No non-primary coverage. (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NBIO. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as actor, entrepreneur and influencer is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. The article is also seems to be written from a non neutral POV Flyingphoenixchips (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines because [provide sources or reasons]. Santoshbasa24 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Plz note that your vote won’t be considered authentic if you have created this account after deletion nomination of this article. Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is clearly AI generated as well, the placeholder [] says it. Also @Santoshbasa24, where are those sources or reasons? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 17:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This vote is suspect. [provide sources or reasons] ... hmmm. Agree with Bunnypranav. It could be AI generated. Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)3[reply]

• Delete : Not a single reliable source found and contains only blog source and self published sources by the subject that clearly fails WP:GNG. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think the creator of the article using multiple accounts and Santoshbasa24 is the same person?? Or he isn't aware about WP:Sockpupetry... but i couldn't confirm that he is the same person or not. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage. Linkedin and social media cannot be used. Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:09, 30 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 14:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]