Nothing notable in the text of the article, even in the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian versions (sr::4. јул (Зрењанин) orsh:Četvrti Jul (Zrenjanin). Unreferenced since its 2007 creation, and the Serbian and Serbo-Croatian versions don't have references either. I didn't find anything about the neighborhood in a (cursory) search, but I may have missed something because I got false positives from a Belgrade publishing house of the same name.Local Internet User (talk)23:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to indicate the prior AfDs have been addressed since making the debut does not address the lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. In fact the draft currently atDraft:Kristiyan Stoyanov is in better shape, albeit with the same notability concerns.StarMississippi23:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about some random yacht owned by a rich dude not notable enough to get an article. The only sources are a obscure danish YouTube video showcasing the ship, a few yacht nerd sites talking about the model of ship and a business insider publication about the events surrounding how some dockworkers don't want to fuel the boat because they didn't like the dude who owns it.Pyrrhicvictor (talk)16:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - It's not just about a random yacht owned by a random dude. It is a yacht that, at the time, was owned by a sanctioned Russian. Also, unlike you claim, there are credible sources, like Business Insider, Superyacht Times and other Dutch news outlets. The yacht itself is also noteworthy looking at the fairly large rebuild/redesign the ship has undergone. Which was, I think, one of the first of this magnitude.102Legobrick (talk)16:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my mistake I wasn't aware of the considerable of the renovations to the vessel and if you're correct in the degree of modification then I would agree the vessel would be notable. Thanks for pointing that out don't know how I missed it. on second thought the modifications should go more towards the company that modified it rather than the ship itself and the modifications while interesting, I don't think they make it notable.Pyrrhicvictor (talk)19:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in RS, rich guy gets a boat, and that's about all. The rest is a technical description that doesn't add to notability. I don't find any sources about it, in RS of course.Oaktree b (talk)23:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Norway incident was also covered byThe Independent[1]. The later course of the yacht was covered byThe Times of Malta[2]. The ScottishDaily Record covered the yacht's visit in 2021[3]. Russian Forbes (from a staff writer) dedicated roughly 100 words to the yacht in 2020[4]. The coverage in the trade press, which is plenty, should also be taken into account.Kelob2678 (talk)22:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on those links, it seems like there's decent coverage in reliable sources about news-worthy events tied to the yacht. Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that the coverage is really about the yacht per se (it's really about the owner's nationality and sanctions tied to that), so if the yacht's owner had an article, I would've preferred merging the yacht into his page. But he doesn't, so I think keeping the yacht's article is justified by the coverage.Local Internet User (talk)00:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to consider an assessment of the existing sources. If they are reliable, it doesn't matter if they are obscure to Wikipedia editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!23:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom; actually created after the album series's deletion with an inexplicable 'it charted at this one time in 2012, meets N' rationale by the creator (for a sub-100 position on what would usually be a bubbling under position on other charts, so it was faulty judgement then!); its only N claim was from around Jackson's death when it charted on the catalog only because had 'everywhere including 7Eleven' availability in the market and was just the easiest/cheapest to find for your average music consumer in that exact period of time in 2009 and no other time.Nathannah •📮00:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as I stated above, its only charting was based upon very unusual circumstances where it could be found everywhere, including even truck stops and supermarkets, rather than just Walmart and record stores. It's already mentioned as an aside (with other Jackson albums with large catalog distrubution) inDeath of Michael Jackson#Record sales, but is otherwise an average greatest hits album with no group involvement whatsoever.Nathannah •📮21:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find any sources for the series that would count for notability (though there are some passing mentions, e.g.[5][6]. These kinds of collections-by-the-publishers series with 0 input or intention from the original authors are almost never notable.PARAKANYAA (talk)22:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every source in this article is a breaking news source from a single day in 2016. Except two sources that postdate this,[7], and a few sentences in a "13 of the creepiest, most messed-up YouTube videos" listicle[8], but this is not enough for notability perWP:GNG. Also I feel like there is some sort of BLP issue with this on account of the fact that he turned out to have nothing to do with the crime but the sources connect him to it.PARAKANYAA (talk)22:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After the article was created, another editor nominated it for DYK, and the nomination was later passed. I believe the topic is notable. Yes it is connected to the missing-person case, but there are also sources that talk about the video itself and explain its context.
Delete The fact that the article is listed as a "hoax" also seems inappropriate, and leads me to agree with your BLP concern. It's pretty clearly just a non-noteworthy joke video that people unjustifiably connected to a disappearance. If itwere a hoax that was intentionally made for that purpose, maybe it would be notable, but its notability really only comes from a misunderstanding / internet panic that existed for one day, and that seems to have been obviously nonsense even at that time. I don't see a justification to keep an article that implies there was something newsworthy about it.
Comment: There was, long ago, mention of "AEXA" as a possible acronym forAgencia Espacial Mexicana (hence the redirect), butmention of that was removed in June 2010 (and the agency ended up as "AEM" instead). This probably could have ended up at RfD long ago for that reason, but with the overriding with an article we're here instead. (While this can be construed as a contesting of the old redirect and opposing any restoration of it, at this time I have no opinion on the current article itself.)WCQuidditch☎✎00:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my removed prod: "Non-notable award. Most sources found online come from Chinese government propaganda outlets which areWikipedia:UNRELIABLE." One source is from CNKI which is deeply influenced and parent organization is owned by the Chinese government. Online is mostly biased sources.
For March 8th Red Banner Pacesetter similar to my prod from there: "Non-notable award. Most sources found online come directly from the organization itself - WP:Primary sources or come from Chinese government propaganda outlets which areWikipedia:UNRELIABLE."
Delete: A very tragic, but quite typical event.WP:NEVENT requires that topics such as this requireenduring historical significance to qualify for an article, and I don't believe that is met here by any metric. Coverage of this incident seems to be quite localized, without any followup after a few years. Further, we should consider the BLP implications of these articles - the family of this girl does not need their trauma immortalized on one of the most popular websites on the Internet indefinitely. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we cannot and should not record every tragedy.MediaKyle (talk)20:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Person died, offender is in jail... That's about the extend of the article here. I don't see anything in the news much past the time the event happened. 20 yrs later, this doesn't appear notable. Tragic, but not for wikipedia.Oaktree b (talk)23:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can see why this article MAY not meetWP:LASTING, but I'm not sure if I should motion for this to be deleted, considering the rich coverage this subject has.
1234567 - Lead to the formation of this centre8 - The death of the subject's dad. Truly tragic.These are some sources, I'm sure more exists out there, future voters, please consider this information as you continue to vote.Kvinnen (talk)06:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The murder was the topic of one of the episodes of the TV series "Nightmare in Suburbia" released in 2010[9]. It was also shown on Lithuanian TV in 2021[10]. Her father established the "Francesca Bimpson Support and Resource Centre", which was covered by the BBC in 2012[11] and later, for example in 2020, in local press[12].Kelob2678 (talk)19:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Looking for more feedback on sources most recently added to this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Left guide (talk)19:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable state agency, the best source in the article is an interview. AGF and all that, but it appears the creator engages in paid editing and was accused of it in Ukrainian Wikipedia[13][14].Kelob2678 (talk)16:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep underWP:I like and also this was a hige deal in the late 2000s! Ten Years of “Shoes,” the Story of the First Great Viral Music Video, Betch [[15]] Early YouTube Star Kelly Performs Viral Song “Shoes” For Pride in Los Angeles [[16]] Liam Kyle Sullivan — YouTuber Behind 'Shoes' and 'Muffins' Videos — Talks Early Success and What He's Up to Now (Exclusive) [[17]] I think if anything it should be merged withLiam Kyle SullivanAgnieszka653 (talk)22:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to very obviously have been written by the article subject (see its edit history). It wasdeleted from the German Wikipedia for lack of notability and self-promotion. The English article has a lot of references and looks legit at a glance, but these references do not seem to actually check out. I can't tell that any of them are actually independent articles about this person. Most are articles he wrote,listings in directories or justquote him once but are actually about some organization he's promoting. Some of the references are to top-level sites that don't mention him. Most are error 404 or redirects at this point and I can't find them in archive.org/archive.today, including for articles that are supposedly just a year old.Here2rewrite (talk)18:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People are going to want to keep this because it's easy enough to find a couple of people "from" here; I found some too, and they were all farmers, and indeed, what's at Haney Corner now is one, maybe two farmsteads, with another in ruins. But I'm going to insist that three farmsteads at a corner are not a town, even if there was a 4th class post office there in the latter days of that period. Other than those people I came up with nothing.Mangoe (talk)16:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically per nom. I can find several records in books and papers about people "from" Haney Corner (or Haney's Corner), but nothing at all about the place. These are trivial mentions.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)22:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This source has only one (maybe reliable) source to support notability and even that I find difficult calling it the gold standard of reliable. Upon further investigation, there were no other reliable sources for this musician, there seemed to only be sources for other Matt Suggs such as a baseball player and a VP, community development for Homes by WestBay. Therefore, this page failsWP:GNG andWP:SIGCOVGjb0zWxOb (talk)15:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per sources identified byKelob2678, and additional sources available on the landfill dispute with Porr AG, which demonstrate that the village is a reasonably well-populated place.BD2412T18:58, 28 November 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
All the sources in this one are either primary orblogs. The same goes forthose listed on the talk. MyWP:BEFORE turned up very little else of substance. The best I could find was passing mentions (such as a reviewer mentioning it in a list of things he would have liked to see in a book on Cthulhu in popular culture[28]; or writers using it as an example when discussing something else[29],[30]). All of this leads me to believe that this failsWP:GNG/WP:NWEB.
Redirect toMunchkin (card game). I think that's very reasonable here. That article should mention the webcomic origins of the work, but otherwise I don't think there's much here. I will check my print sources to see ifUnspeakable Vault is mentioned in any of them, but I won't be home for the next few days. I don't expect a lot from them, and it can probably be covered in the card game. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat)11:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything indicating significance. Does not appear to have caused the same sort of coverage that the cronut did when it was originally created. I'm not finding coverage outside of recipes which don't confer notability. If merging, I think brownie is most appropriate as the batters seem to share more with brownies/blondies than the enormous variety of cookies out there.
If this page is kept, I would recommend renaming it to "Brookie (dessert)" to avoid confusion with brook trout which are also called "brookies" and are a food.
no sources or info about the movie beyond two credits and an incomplete release date. results gave me databases, wikipedia, and passing mentions in books about assorted, probably-non-croatian-film topics, seemingly only in the context of the director. the croatian article is equally raw, and the welsh one is only nominally better (even if the sources there seem unreliable)consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)12:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll ask atWP:CROATIA to see if anyone is able to go looking for sourcing in Croatian. It's possible that coverage might not be in English or would be not easily found online. My apologies if either of you are fluent and already checked.ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)15:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did findthis andthis. I'm not fluent and one is only viewable in snippet view, plus I'm not familiar with the publishing companies of either, so I don't know how in-depth they go or how usable they are. It does make me think that theremight be more in Croatian.ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)15:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
nah, i'm just relying on translations. that said, only the second result you found seems to have a chance of having more than a passing mention, though it doesn't seem to be a particularly high oneconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)15:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a brief vaguely positive review inVijenac #170 (7 September 2000)[34], and a note in theCroatian Film Association database saying it's good, "despite the disparagement of domestic critics"[35]. So there had to have been some of these bad reviews of it at the time, but these critical articles aren't necessarily online? A further search brought up an entry in a 2012 list of Croatian comedies at the 'eZadar' web portal,[36], but I don't know if it's reliable. Plus a lot of cursory mentions. It does get mentioned in pretty much every biography of Schmidt and Tribuson. --Joy (talk)22:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toAsghar_Farhadi#Filmography: With NFF, the commencement of principal photography is only the threshold at which we can begin to consider if an unreleased film is notable. An unreleased film isn't notable because it has begun. I searched for sourcing under both titles and offhand, the coverage is fairly sporadic. There were some announcements before filming began, but there hasn't been any in-depth coverage of the actual filming. Now, an additional issue here is that the coverage appears to be your typical "we got a press release this month and we're going to put out an article based on that" type of coverage. You can even see that the coverage is primarily during two months: April and September, primarily April. There's not really a huge amount of discussion or coverage that you would see with some of the more major films.
The general rule of thumb with NFF is that the coverage must be heavy enough to where the production could be notable if everything were to come to a screeching halt and the film never released. It's not uncommon for this to happen, even with films that seemed to be all but guaranteed to release. Right now the coverage for this isn't heavy enough to show notability in the here and now. I think that a redirect with history to the director's article is the best bet. This can be restored once more coverage comes about, which will most likely be when it releases and gets some reviews.ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)20:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged this nn a few months ago, dunno about the AI generated and I don't really think it matters too much since it's a brochure either way, and the sources are still all your usualWP:SERIESA stuff and SPS. I guess the first,Business Insider source being the usual funding announcement format but lacking even real funding information (much less any other useful information) because they hyped it so much they did it before the funding round is a little new. Can't write an encyclopedia article out of hype though.
Extended content
Created with templates{{ORGCRIT assess table}} and{{ORGCRIT assess}} This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep orsignificant sources witheach source containing"Independent Content" showingin-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must includeoriginal and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sources in the article meet the criteria. I ask if people disagree, please point to specific content (e.g. the paragraph starting with the word ...) or pages where you believe there is in-depth indepdent *content* about the *company*. HighKing++09:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Next we have a bunch of articles covering the initial announcement, all saying the same thing around the same week or so. It is PR and regurgitates company-provided information. None of these sources include any kind of "independent content" by way of in-depth opinion or analysis and they failWP:ORGIND and/orWP:CORPDEPTH. (Did we really need all these sources in the article or is this an example of ref bloat?) I include the following in this selection:
Keep German Wikipedia shows 12x national team caps and sources pointing to the UEFA website. Article should be improved not deleted.Abcmaxx (talk)23:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP issues were not resolved, notability not proven. The page currently does not contain any independent sources. When I tried to find some biographical details, the search engine only found physicist Karel Výborný (1978–2025).FromCzech (talk)06:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If you ask me article needs a total cleanup, there are sources in Italian out there to use.WP:BEFORE is difficult so I understand the nomination. I however feel this article can be a viable edition to Wikipedia and really needs work done on it.Govvy (talk)09:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Svartner. 4meter4, please do better BEFORE searches before nominating an article, including clicking on foreign language wikis when they exist.SportingFlyerT·C12:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point on the Italian wiki sources. I should have checked there. That said,WP:NEXIST isn't everything. As a general rule unsourced pages, even when there are materials, aren't allowed to hang around forever. This has been an unsourced article for 19 years. Someone actually needs to put in some verified content (even if it just verifies one or two sentences) or we should just remove all of it. I contemplated redirecting it toEccellenza Apulia. I may still do that if no article improvement happens. We can't support unsourced material perWP:BURDEN because people can just blank the page in such cases, and be correct in doing so under verifiable rulesFacts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. It would be helpful here for those who understand this sport and its Italian language sources (I don't particularly) to be the ones to take the time to add even just one inline citation. That to me would be sufficient to rescue this if the consensus here is that SIGCOV exists. Best.4meter4 (talk)12:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD not should be used as means to force improvements, it should only be used for articles that do not pass the notability threshold. Clearly an article with 16xWP:RS's on Italian Wikipedia meets this threshold, and given we have articles on most Eccellenza football clubs notability is clearly established.Abcmaxx (talk)23:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would be appropriate. I am sure that several dippy zines of the time would have had extensive reviews of this monograph, but to date, are not online.Guinness323 (talk)07:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin suggested no prejudice against speedy renomination. As stated, the subject fails NBAD, which requires podium finish at the Grand Prix/Superseries and the World Tour tournaments. The tournament "Ethiopia International" doesn't pass NBAD.The subject also doesn't pass GNG and SIGCOV in the reliable sources. Search results are all Wikipedia mirrors, score sites, match results and other trivial mentions.zglph•talk•05:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I’ve linked this article to the relevant article on Italian Wikipedia but that’s of very little help in finding sources. I can’t actually find any in depth coverage of the subject at all. However I believe he passesWP:AUTHOR as he is “regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors” and his work is widely cited and authoritative. His magnum opus on Sicilian heraldry is an important authority on the history of the island. For example theDizionario Biografico degli Italiani cites it 29 times. The best solution I can come up with is to merge this article intoHouse of Gravina and redirect, with the merged content focusing more on the book than on the author.Mccapra (talk)08:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the book passesWP:NBOOK another option would be to refactor this into being a book article. That's often a good solution for authors with only one notable book.~ L 🌸 (talk)09:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
possibly but though the book is widely used as a reference don’t see any in depth coverage of it to warrant an article with the book as a subject.Mccapra (talk)22:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: Perhaps a merge toKingdom of Sicily? I would imagine his history would be covering that period of history, the notable families of that kindom (ie the heraldry/families that ran the kingdom) and would behighly pertinent there.4meter4 (talk)22:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not eligible for draft due to it being a 20 year old article. SeeWP:DRAFTNO which states articles older than 90 days should not be draftified. That ship sailed long ago back in 2005.4meter4 (talk)18:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can find a couple of sources about him,1 and2, and in addition abook search shows that he appears in several biographical dictionaries and dictionaries of heraldry. He also held elected office on Warsaw city council.Mccapra (talk)08:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find what the previous author had made, but I figured I'd give this page another go, with broader sources, and more info. Especially considering it's now a massive REIT with global operations. Here are some examples of self storage company pages that are far worse than mine, that have not been deleted, just for comparison. I think this can remain and expand over time.
Delete: This is just a brochure, mostly sourced to the company's own promotional materials. A Google search turns up lots of press releases, and what appears to be sponsored content, but I see nothing of significance.MediaKyle (talk)20:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article failsWP:GNG andWP:CREATIVE. A draft of the article was declined twice byWP:WPAFC editors, and the page creator moved the draft to mainspace after two failed submissions. The subject of the article is the founder of Geez Liberia, a non-notable platform. The awards he's won are also non-notable. Some of the article's sources are not independent of the subject. Versace1608Wanna Talk?02:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Let me make these few points to address the ones you’ve made on notability and sources for the article on Kerkula Blama. The subject in question has received coverage from multiple independent and reliable news outlets, including FrontPage Africa, The New Dawn, News Ghana and Liberian Observer. These sources and other notable sources show that the subject has received significant coverage independent of his own platform, which meets theGeneral notability guideline.
Also, while some awards may be local or regional, they are covered in independent media reports, which surely establishes third-party recognition. Notability does not require international awards; coverage by independent media is sufficient. Earlier drafts submitted to WP:AFC were revised based on previous feedback. Also, moving a draft to the mainspace after revisions, while ensuring it meets Wikipedia’s policies, is permissible. The current article includes references that are independent and shows independent coverage, which was lacking in the earlier submissions. The article has been fully updated to prioritize coverage from independent sources over self published or affiliated platforms. Independent coverage shows that the subject is recognized outside of his own initiatives.
Responding to your concern @Katzrockso about why the first two articles not independent of the subject, let me say that firstly they are independent of the subject and that is because they are notable third-party news outlets. The subject or his platform is in no way affiliated to neither of those sources and those articles were written by independent journalists reporting on his life, work and contributions to the digital media and entertainment space of Liberia. Those two sources provide in-depth coverage that is very independent of the subject which supports the article’s claims and helps establish notability under theGeneral notability guideline.
Therefore in lights of all these, I respectfully suggest that the article merits retention for any further improvement where necessary instead of deletion. I also do welcome guidance from editors on any remaining gaps to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing standards.MichaelMorris96 (talk)10:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is independent, non trivial coverage from reliable sources such as Frontpage Africa, Liberian Observe, Music in Afric, The New Dawn, News Ghana and Ameyaw Debrah, along with documented recognition from the 2024 Paynesville Entertainment Awards. These meet the basic requirements ofWP:GNG andWP:NCORP, supporting retention.MichaelMorris96 (talk)12:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The figure should meetWP:NPOL and a goodWP:BEFORE of Italian language sources should be done before redirecting, although I am aware that it may be impossible to find additional sourcing on a figure this old. I can't read Italian, so I can't really do a goodWP:BEFORE.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk)19:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. We do not need separate pages for every conceiveable territory, when nothing can be said that deviates from the main territory.Geschichte (talk)13:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization. I cannot findany coverage that is independent of the subject. There are zero secondary sources cited in the article, and a basic BEFORE search found nothing beyond the organization's own website and Wikipedia mirrors. Clear fail ofWP:NCORP.Trainsandotherthings (talk)03:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article inThe Railway Magazine is borderline sigcov (it's about a Gala organised for their 30th anniversary rather than the org themselves) but given I found it on the first page of a Google News search for"Irish Traction Group" it proves the nominator's BEFORE was not exhaustive and that secondary sources do exist, I also found several other articles that included mentions of the ITG or their activities but were not useful for demonstrating notability. Some, e.g.[42] would definitely be useful in a merged article about railway preservation in Ireland though, so deletion should be off the table.[43] is a forum, and thus unreliable, but I would be astonished if there there wasn't coverage of this in the railway press from the time (December 2011) but I haven't found anything contemporary online.This book seems like it could be a useful source with in-depth coverage but it's only available in snippet view on Google Books.Thryduulf (talk)19:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Railway preservation in Ireland is a redlink, but if someone is interested in creating it some of the content from this article would be useful there. I don't have the sources or background knowledge to create that article myself. I also want to point out that Google Books will give different results for someone in the U.S. (me) vs. someone in the U.K. (you).Trainsandotherthings (talk)23:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to the article on the area in which it sits:Moylagh, County Meath. As anWP:ATD. In my ownWP:BEFORE, Ifound and added a number of sources which deal with the townland's population and historical/archaeological sites. Granted not in crazy depth (and the population figure for Gortloney townland likely encompasses those houses on the outskirts ofDrumone village which span into Gortloney townland). And, while there may not be enough to definitively establish independent notability, I can't personally support outright deletion. A merge/redirect, to the "more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it", would be consistent withWP:GEOLAND.Guliolopez (talk)15:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's listed as a voting district on page 305 here[44] with 1486 voters. It's not clear how we should cover Malaysian geography on Wikipedia but absent a suitable merge/redirect topic, we shouldn't delete this.Katzrockso (talk)22:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The requested deletion currently readsI am the original author of this article and would like to request its deletion as I have created a more appropriate version elsewhere. Thank you" This can only meanHydarali Kottikulam, so we can either proceed with this AFD as-is, or unredirectHydarali Kottikulam and rename this AFD. Or we could simply speedy both db-band.Wikishovel (talk)18:24, 28 November 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment moving this article to draftspace would be much more appropriate. Nominating an article for AfD only 33 minutes after it was created seems unnecessary.aesurias (talk)02:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is stub and poorly written. But for notability concern, it is. A simpleGoogle book search is enough for notability. It's notable ethnic group of Assam. The article should be re-written with proper sourcing. And my vote isKeepdraftify. --SaTnamZIN (talk)02:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability - the only sources on the article are a GameSpot database listing (unreliable perWP:VG/RS as it is shared with GameFAQS), a Youtube gameplay video (seeWP:RSPYT), and a playable version of the game on the Internet Archive. None of these sources indicate notability and I was unable to find any sources in my Archive.org search discussing the game, though Spectrum Computing lists aPreview andReview from Microhobby magazine. Despite the Microhobby coverage I do not think that GNG is met. Has been PRODded - PROD was removed by the creator of the article after adding the Youtube and IA references.Waxworker (talk)21:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is definitely the right venue for this since it was de-PRODded. Perhaps the creator misunderstood our notability guidelines? Anyhow, I'm going to !votedelete perWP:NOTPLOT here. Like I have said several times before on other AFD's, reception is perhaps the most important section when writing about something related to video games in regards to notability, and the article doesn't bother to discuss that.Gommeh📖🎮22:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found a review byMicromanía:[47]. Meets the minimum notability guideline with 2 reviews. There's also this walkthrough, though I don't think it qualifies as significant coverage since it doesn't seem to contain any critical analysis (but could be used to source gameplay section):[48]. --Mika1h (talk)14:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There seems to be just two even remotely reliable independent sources on this game: a review in Microhobby and a review in Micromanía, both published around the time of the game's release. Two contemporary reviews do not constituteWP:SIGCOV - if someone is able to dig up some more in-depth contemporary sources, or find some modern sources discussing the game that I've missed in my search, I'll gladly change my vote, but currently I see no evidence to satisfyWP:GNG.Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk |contribs)08:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I nominateFoodstirs for deletion. The article likely failsWP:GNG and does not demonstrate lastingWP:SUSTAINED notability as it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and exists mainly due to celebrity association rather than the company’s independent significance. Likely also fall underWP:COI concerns due to founder publicity.SanneMonte (talk)09:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do you mean when referencing Conflict of Interest "due to founder publicity"? Are you suggestingSarah Michelle Gellar is spending time editing a Wikipedia page about a now-defunct food brand?
A better argument would be that almost all of the sources dsicuss SMG rather than the company explicitly, but that argument has not been made so I won't yet vote.aesurias (talk)22:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot determine whether the company still exists. Link on the article was to a gambling (scam?) site so I updated to one of the pages that still seems to exist for the foodstirs company. I cannot tell if their products are still on sale or not or if the company actually shuttered in 2021 as stated in the article. Products are still listed on instacart but no other "reliable" places to order products (?). The only "in-depth" article I can find about their products is from slate, but it reads more like a blog and I'm not sure it should count toward notability for a company/product[49]. Other coverage is routineWP:NCORP coverage that doesn't establish notability (funding, uncritical coverage of product launches). Most articles lead with comments about Sarah Michelle Gellar as well, and the company seems to be receiving coverage mainly for that association as noted above.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk)04:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
British political advisor ('SpAd') and sometime musician. Not elected, so failsWP:NPOL as a politician and brief career withClean Bandit doesn't confer notability. Redirect toClean Bandit as AtD (his only possible claim to notability is the band, not as a political advisor) reverted, so we find ourselves here. Coverage presented is for Clean Bandit, not Amin-Smith. Wonder if there's a COI involved here, but honestly am not bothered. If not Redirect, Delete.Alexandermcnabb (talk)16:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: his notability as a political advisor is underscored by his several mentions in various reputed outlets (Politico,The Guardian) as Rachel Reeves' foremost advisor, and in his topping ofThe Standard's 'List of Sexiest Londoners'this year, both of which were my reasoning for constructing the article (as opposed solely to his time as a violinist in a band). I don't see why he should be considered any less notable than two of the otherClean Bandit membersGrace Chatto and especiallyJack Patterson, neither of whom are reported on individually as much in recent years. Amin-Smith does failWP:NPOL (after all, civil servants aren't politicians), but fulfils every aspect ofWP:GNG.Profavi1 (talk)16:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As argued by the previous voter. The current article is lopsided and does not need to repeat basic info on Clean Bandit and Smith's place in the band. Conversely, the section on his political advising career can be expanded because he has received notice for influencing some powerful people. He does not need to satisfyWP:NPOL because he is not a politican running for office, but perWP:GNG he has achieved basic notability as someone who has been covered in reliable media sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)21:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the sources currently in the "Political career" section have a hard time introducing him without talking about his previous music career, but that is standard journalistic practice. After that obligatory coverage, my stance is that the sources are indeed about his current work as an advisor, however brief. Here are some more that follow the same pattern but still name him as an advisor to the powerful:[50],[51]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)15:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See this here indenting thing? It's used for discussion. I say a thing, you say a thing. Screaming bludgeon during dialogue is hardly conducive to discussion. BestAlexandermcnabb (talk)05:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fully two-thirds of the current sourcing relates to Clean Bandit. That leaves the only claim to fame being mentioned incidentally in coverage or winning a "sexiest" list by one publication. That doesn't meet the significant coverage standard for me.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk14:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A special advisor isn't notable, the violin playing could be, but he's a rather minor member of the band. Sexiest anything isn't quite notable either. Most of the coverage is about the band, not about this person. Being on a politician's staff isn't notable, I'm not sure what's left...Oaktree b (talk)20:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Amin-Smith has had an interesting career. Perhaps we can all agree on that! If he was just a musician, maybe you'd have a case to just redirect toClean Bandit. If he was just a spad, maybe you'd have a case underWP:NPOL to delete. But he's been both and there's enough sourcing to write an article about him. In other words, he meetsWP:GNG, including aPolitico article all about him, and a lead role in aStandard article, and even anAttitude piece about his relationship ending.Bondegezou (talk)21:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pretty much the same as a data breach, this doesn't have much about why "medical data" is different than other data, then goes on to a long list of breaches. Somewhat USA-focused at the start of the article, then jumps all over the place. I don't see notability.Oaktree b (talk)14:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm certainly seeing enough sigcov about this topic specifically for full notability. Also note a procedural objection as OP's argument contains no P+G argument for deletion, they appear to have made a merge argument at AfD... AfD is not cleanup and we do seem to have a notable topic here.Horse Eye's Back (talk)15:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly hold my hands up to a procedural objection and will make a note to carefully guidance so future noms are cleaner.Joe (talk)14:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joereddington: your options in that case are to supply such a P+G based deletion rationale or withdraw the AfD. While its nice to know that you will do better next time your obligation right now is to this time.Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the grounds of SIGCOV it does... On the grounds of GNG it does... It doesn't appear to be excluded by WP:NOT... On what grounds do you say that it simply doesn't? I have a hard time imagining any such argument to be simple given the circumstances I just laid out. Also note that you have voted delete not merge.Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started this article in 2015 before this was much of a concept.Data breach cites 125 sources and is ranked as a good article.List of data breaches has 666 citations. This is already a flood of too many sources for this topic, and while I agree that this is tangled and growing, I prefer to develop this content by splitting this information into multiple articles rather than deleting some and converging back to fewer, broader articles. I think a good divide would be data breach by field (like this one, medicine) and by country (for example,Data breaches in India). We do not currently have categories for such things inCategory:Data breaches, nor do we have a data breach navbox. I could set a few up, if we agreed that doing so would increase the value of having separate articles.
Here are some recent review articles about medical data breaches. These both establishWP:GNG and also this field specific information is undue for inclusion in more general articles.
Khanijahani, Ahmad; Iezadi, Shabnam; Agoglia, Sarah; Barber, Spencer; Cox, Courtney; Olivo, Natalie (2 November 2022). "Factors Associated with Information Breach in Healthcare Facilities: A Systematic Literature Review".Journal of Medical Systems.46 (12).doi:10.1007/s10916-022-01877-1.
Nemec Zlatolas, Lili; Welzer, Tatjana; Lhotska, Lenka (October 2024). "Data breaches in healthcare: security mechanisms for attack mitigation".Cluster Computing.27 (7):8639–8654.doi:10.1007/s10586-024-04507-2.
Looi, Jeffrey CL; Looi, Richard CH; Maguire, Paul A; Kisely, Steve; Bastiampillai, Tarun; Allison, Stephen (April 2024). "Psychiatric electronic health records in the era of data breaches – What are the ramifications for patients, psychiatrists and healthcare systems?".Australasian Psychiatry.32 (2):121–124.doi:10.1177/10398562241230816.
I am aware that deletion reviews like this one are not supposed to be a negotiation to improve content, but I can see that this article needs development to be up to Wikipedia's standards, and if I knew that it were not going to be deleted for failing inclusion criteria then I could put time into making it better. I commit to making a navbox, sorting categories, and adding some recent sources if this article passes deletion review. Bluerasberry(talk)15:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to data breach – PerWP:CFORK andWP:SUMMARYSTYLE, this is really “data breaches in healthcare”, i.e. sector-specific detail of the general concept already covered atdata breach andlist of data breaches. Most of the body is a partial incident list (some unsourced, contra WP:V) and duplicated regulatory material better handled in existing law/privacy articles.
Keep: There is a large amount of scholarly and non-scholarly coverage on medical data breaches specifically, and their ramifications are unique compared to other common data breaches. An article being in a poor state is not in itself a reason for deletion - seeWP:DINC. This is aWP:PAGEDECIDE issue rather than an issue of inherent notability, and as far as PAGEDECIDE goes, I see more than enough coverage about this topic specifically to warrant separation from the main article on data breaches as a general concept.Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk |contribs)08:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that this may be a hoax article. I don't speak Korean, but none of the four forms of his name (Hangul, Hanja, RR, MR) came up with anything seemingly relevant in my searches (there were a few possible matches on Google Scholar for the Hanja name, but I couldn't be sure it was definitely about this person with just machine translation). It's absolutely possible that all sources for this person's existence are offline, but I have no way to check that.Suntooooth, it/he (talk |contribs)02:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He appears to have been a real person, these sources are justKorean wikis/Encylopedias so they're not like the most ideal but they do suffice. I do think the figure is very obscure though hence why theres almost nothing on him, his most noteworthy things really are just being Prime Minister (but no records of what he did survive) and being an ancestor of his much more famous descendent.Sunnyediting99 (talk)04:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Korean wiki links to a website that seems to reference a paper source from 1992, but I have no idea if that's a RS. I don't find anything, but wouldn't know where to look other than Gbooks or Gscholar, which don't turn up much. I don't have enough info to !vote at this time.Oaktree b (talk)15:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist. Still no ! votes. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Fade258 (talk)13:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toYŏn Kaesomun, his famous grandson, both sources provided above discuss him in this context. To have an article on a historical person, it is not enough to verify their existence, we need to have at least something substantial, sourced to RS, to add to the article. Here, we have nothing, not even his birth/death years.Kelob2678 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC) The article states that he held a position akin to a Prime Minister, so one could argue he passesWP:NPOL. I would then say that we haveWP:NOPAGE.Kelob2678 (talk)21:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I agree that this would be a good course of action. If more sources are found later, the redirect can always be made back into a full article.Suntooooth, it/he (talk |contribs)20:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was tagged forWP:G5. Technically it meets the criteria, but I think this has the potential for being a useful encyclopedia article. I couldn'tobviously find a good source discussing the topic as a list, just the individual incidents, so I'd rather put the decision out to the wider community to discuss what to do with it.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A trend would be fine for an Islamophobia article, but not for NLIST. NLIST would need to have some semblance of a list in significant secondary coverage, but it need not be complete. ←Metallurgist (talk)04:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's pretty thin gruel, possibly the notable incidents could be a section in the Islamophobia in the UK page, that feels more appropriate than a list of references to papers.Halbared (talk)14:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary and histrionic emotional appeal. Pls provide a legitimate reason as to why this content, which has been covered by multiple sources that fit NLIST, needs to be deleted.Lettlre (talk)01:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the principle that Wikipedia should not keep an article created by a user who was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry weeks earlier.I2Overcometalk11:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, doesn't pass NLIST, and BMB for the non-smartse edits. And as for the Smartse edits, well, one of them just straight up failed verification with the given source & called something an attack in Wikivoice,[52] using a contemporary news report that said it was being investigated to see if it was actually an attack.[53] Now, could it be? Maybe- but an administrator should know to find a source for that material before adding it. This is a very contentious political area, we do not need people throwing the first page of their google results in and saying "close enough", and if these are the type of edits two admins are going to look at and say "okay", well, then I don't think we can maintain a PAG compliantstand alone page, not when we already haveIslamophobia in the United Kingdom. Notable attacks can be discussed there; we don't need a separate article.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸11:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, @Smartse Would it be too great of an imposition for me to request you stop adding contemporaneous news reports, when the investigation was ongoing, to support entries on the list? It's very much veering into original research at this point.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸20:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is very much not original research. There was an arson attack on the mosque; that is not in dispute. The investigation was to determine if it was aterror incident. This is not a list of terror incidents but a list ofattacks and that is unambiguously an attack. And it described as such in reliable sources which talk about it being just one of many attacks, hence the justification for this list.BobFromBrockley (talk)09:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Easykeep. Unambiguously passes NLIST, as the topic of the article "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", as evidenced by the sources post by BobFromBrockley.WP:OR is not a justification for deletion if editing can remove the OR, which it can - simply making structure criterion for inclusion would obviate this criticism. Contra some other comments here, NLIST does not require that the topic of the article be discussed as a list specifically (e.g. a news article saying "here's a list of mosques attacks in the United Kingdom").Katzrockso (talk)08:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with BobFromBrockley and Katzrockso that this topic has been covered in general in many sources, and this does not fit G5 because it was edited by others.Lettlre (talk)01:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every time someone attacks a religious building in a country, is not a reason to have a list of it. None of these incidents were notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, so not a valid navigational list either.DreamFocus15:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a mix of dicdef,WP:OR and misunderstanding. The tl;dr is that we don't need it and it is actively harmful in suggesting the misnomer a bachelor's degree, once awarded, may be referred to as an "undergraduate degree".
The first thing to note is that almost none of the references even hint that "undergraduate degree" is a thing. A few of the references talk about "undergraduate degree program(me)s", which is better and if kept, this article should be moved to that name. There is just one source, the QAA source, that contains4.17.6 In Scotland a small number of universities (Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh and St Andrews (the Scottish Ancients) have a long tradition of labelling certain undergraduate academic degrees as Master of Arts 'MA'. However, even here, they are clearly speaking about "undergraduate academic degree programs". No source defines or makes the case that there is such a concept as "undergraduate degree" once the student has graduated.
An alternative to deletion is to redirect toUndergraduate education. However that alternative was discussed in a poorly attended merge proposal in 2022 and rejected. Having more eyes on it here at AfD will be beneficial and I do not oppose that ATD.
Keep: While the article may require improvement in the information that it expresses, it doesn't mean that there aren't valid sources that exist to cover this topic (seeWP:NEXIST). Considering that this satisfiesWP:GNG, is a broad enough topic (more specific than the individual types of degrees), and is aLevel-5 Vital article, I'd say what this article needs isn't deletion, but an increased supplement of reliable sources and restructuring, at best. —Alex26337(talk)09:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At AfD we need to review the sources. They don't need to be in the article, but we can't just assume they exist either. What articles speak about "undergraduate degrees" as a thing rather than "undergraduate degree programmes" which lead to graduation with a degree?Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)10:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Alex26337, this is clearly notable. A quick Google shows many sources referring to 'undergraduate degree' - it obviously satisfiedWP:GNG. I also note that the nominator has been going around removing links to this article prior to this discussion being completed, making the article appear less important to the rest of Wikipedia.Robminchin (talk)16:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And again, at AfD we need to review the sources. What independent reliable secondary sources are calling this thing an "undergraduate degree"?Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)17:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, this is a standard term that is used all over the place. It appears that you did not do the basic check of searching for sources before nominating this article for deletion and are instead making other editors do the work for you.Robminchin (talk)19:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When the term is used on the admissions page of a college it is evident that they are talking about their programmes. Those are geared to undergraduate admissions to a degree programme. Where does it get used of graduates with one of these degrees? The Times quotes in Collins are a little more interesting but they lack essential context to evaluate the sources against the usual criteria. Also be aware of the talk on the talk page of the article, where, on 9 October 2018, an IP pointed out the curious effect of citogenesis (or a variant of it). And please assume good faith. Although a WP:BEFORE is not, in fact, required at AfD, it should be clear that I reviewed all sources on the page. In addition I read through the whole talk page and conducted Google searches and books searches. I found a lot of admissions brochures for undergraduate degree programmes, and see the nom. statement for my views on that. I did not find people saying things like "Baroness Casey has an undergraduate degree in history" in any sources. I did find people saying that on Wikipedia, mind.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)19:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are telling people what the qualification is that they are studying for. You are reading your interpretation into the sources against the plain meaning of the English language - they say things like "An undergraduate degree can be an associate or a bachelor's" (ODU) or "An undergraduate degree is an academic credential awarded by a college or university after completing a prescribed course of study" (KU). The quotes fromThe Times are clearly also referring in at least two of the cases to people who have graduated. The QAA document is talking about the qualification awarded. The UNESCO document uses undergraduate degree to talk about the qualification someone is expected to have prior to starting a master's degree.
I did a Google News search for you for "undergraduate degree in history" and the first result starts "Savannah Jackson earned her undergraduate degree in history at Saint Mary’s College in South Bend"[57]. Another result has "DeSantis earned his undergraduate degree in history from Yale University"[58], while yet another has "Grubb studied pre-law, then English but eventually earned his undergraduate degree in history at Washington and Lee University"[59]. It might not be Baroness Casey, but that bit's not particularly relevant.
You can also find stories saying things like "Recent research shows that jobs which once required A-level qualifications now need an undergraduate degree"[60] or "Today, more people are pursuing higher education than ever before, so it’s normal to take an undergraduate degree for granted, and for job applications to be competitive"[61] – again, clearly referring to the qualification.
WP:BEFORE literally starts "Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:" and includes, underWP:DILIGENCE, "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, and a Google News search".Robminchin (talk)22:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained that I exceeded the requirements ofWP:BEFORE. The issue is that we are not approaching this from the same angle. You appear to be arguing the page should exist based on the fact the term getsused, whereas I am saying that the page should only exist if there is a subject by this name. Although you will no doubt object that this is also exactly what you are arguing, and that you have presented evidence now that the usage of the term demonstrates the subject. But that is where the disagreement lies. That people speak loosely with this term is clear, and so that it shows up in some news sources is to be expected. None of those sources suggest that there is any encyclopaedic subject of "undergraduate degree" such that a graduate with a bachelors degree holds an "undergraduate degree." In fact they hold a degree. This is often a first degree, and they may hold a post-graduate qualification too. But the concept that a graduate might hold an "undergraduate degree" is sloppy usage, and the attempt to create a page based on occasional misusage would beWP:SYNTH.Likewise, basing the page on admissions pages (as the page is now, and as per your sources 2 and 3) is only really valid if you are talking about undergraduate courses of study that lead to a degree. But what this page is saying is that there are a class of degrees that are undergraduate degrees (treated as a group and larger than bachelors degrees, theWP:COMMONNAME for those). Why? Well simply, I think, because they are not post-graduate degrees and because associate degrees and foundation degrees exist. But what sources do we have that say there is a class of degrees that are commonly (because the article must followWP:COMMONNAME) called undergraduate degrees, once awarded? If this page is about undergraduate study it should be merged or renamed, per what I said in the nom. If this page is saying there are a class of degrees that are commonly called undergraduate degrees, we still don't have the sources for that.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)11:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be shifting ground now that your original claims have been demonstrated to be incorrect. To be clear:
'it is actively harmful in suggesting the misnomer a bachelor's degree, once awarded, may be referred to as an "undergraduate degree"'. False. Reliable sources use 'undergraduate degree' to refer to bachelor's degrees, associate degrees, Scottish MAs, integrated master's degrees, etc.
'almost none of the references even hint that "undergraduate degree" is a thing.' False. It is referred to repeatedly by reliable sources.
'even here [the QAA document], they are clearly speaking about "undergraduate academic degree programs"'. False. They are talking about the Scottish MA, which is a qualification not a program.
'No source defines or makes the case that there is such a concept as "undergraduate degree" once the student has graduated.' False. Reliable sources repeatedly refer to people holding undergraduate degrees.
And, in your recent post, 'None of those sources suggest that there is any encyclopaedic subject of "undergraduate degree" such that a graduate with a bachelors degree holds an "undergraduate degree."'. False. The university articles cited, and others that could have been cited, do precisely that, with pages titled things like "What is an undergraduate degree" that state, explicitly, that it takes in bachelor's degrees. Reliable news sources repeatedly refer to people holding undergraduate degrees.
Basically, your whole premise is demonstrably false. It appears that the problem is that you don't like the term and so define any use of it as "people speak[ing] loosely". In Wikipedia, we are supposed to follow the sources, not decide that we know better than them.Robminchin (talk)00:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not shifted ground. I said at the outset that this article is a mix ofWP:DICDEF,WP:OR and misunderstanding. It is aWP:DICDEF, despite dictionaries not actually including this definition themselves. I suspect you know that since you quoted the usages in Collins, but despite Collins finding a few usages, it appears they are insufficient for them to consider it meets the criteria for inclusion as a definition in their dictionary. What they do include, however, is a definition forfirst degree, thus:
People who have gained a higher qualification after completing a basic university degree such as a BA or a BSc refer to that basic degree as their first degree.[62]
First degree, therefore, is theWP:COMMONNAME and if kept, the article should be renamed. Note that even in their definition, they do not includeundergraduate degree. And they are not alone. The Oxford English Dictionary has no definition forundergraduate degree but says offirst degree,
The academic qualification achieved by an undergraduate student on graduation (later often as contrasted with postgraduate qualifications); the course of study leading to this.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, perWP:NOT, and dictionary definitions are excluded from articles under the second arm ofWP:N, which states that a subject is notable for an article if it meetsWP:GNG and is not excluded under WP:NOT. The dictionary definition is excluded.What aboutWP:OR? Well, inasmuch as we are synthesising a subject from primary sources using the term (or not, as the case is for many of the sources), the article isWP:OR. However I am now less convinced there is not a subject here at all. But what sources speak to the subject? Noting that we have a page about bachelors degrees, and another for foundation degrees and another for associate degrees, this article is essentially a wrapper for these, around the definition of a first degree. That is, a degree that is not a postgraduate degree. We still don't have sources that show these are treated as a subject, but it perhaps stands to reason that such a subject might exist. How is it different fromUndergraduate education though? What are secondary sources saying about first degrees as a class and subject in themselves, that is not said in an article on undergraduate education? Isn't this a case ofWP:NOPAGE? Should this be merged withUndergraduate education? There is nothing that can be said here that cannot be said elsewhere (other than a dictionary definition that even dictionaries don't carry). Unless, that is, we have some sources that show otherwise.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)09:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think the best outcome here is building this article up as an overview of the types of undergraduate degrees, with sections for each type of degree and "see more" links to each of those degrees. If people are looking for multiple types of undergraduate degrees, it would be useful to have something more than just a disambiguation page or the undergraduate education page mentioned earlier in this AfD. However, if that cannot be done, I support a redirect or deletion of some kind. "First degree" should probably be a redirect to this page.Royal Autumn Crest (talk)14:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was inclined to go redirect at first, but there are some decent arguments for keeping this as a general overview of the various types of undergraduate degrees, or at the very least dabify.Google Scholar has some results, which probably would be helpful to add. It is a legitimate question if this is a fork ofundergraduate education and the assorted degrees. ←Metallurgist (talk)04:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WhileTmoTom (talk·contribs) is the actual nominator, I technically created this page because {{subst:afd2}} was instead inserted both onto the talk page and to directly on the log page itself. My repair is entirely procedural and I offer no opinion of my own.WCQuidditch☎✎02:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is not substantial, independent coverage of Baier-Lentz. His name appears in all of the used sources, but they are non-independent (WP:FORBESCON, companies that Baier-Lentz has worked at like Lightspeed, interviews that do not contribute to notability), one-line mentions that don't go into any depth (New York Times), androutine business announcements (VentureBeat, Axios). --Reconrabbit15:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•Keep: There are a number of news that cover Baier-Lentz as the main topic directly and aren't routine coverage, both in U.S. outlets (Business Insider, Axios, VentureBeat, PitchBook, TechCrunch, The Information, etc.) and in Germany (FAZ, Die Zeit, Die Welt, etc.). Including recent ones that are not included in the article for discussion, e.g.,https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/moritz-baier-lentz-ein-aufsteiger-aus-deutschland-110250233.html. Google shows over 10 pages of results for his name for me. He's also been in numerous well-known German podcasts as a guest like Die Welt or OMR, which is the biggest German podcast featuring people and their background stories.
I don't know about the U.S., but in Germany, Baier-Lentz is one of the most well-known venture capital investors in Silicon Valley. And in the gaming industry, he is probably the best known investor (and most active). The "CEO Forum" that Baier-Lentz organizes every year in San Francisco is the biggest event for gathering all CEOs in gaming (including CEOs of all the publicly listed companies in U.S., Europe, and Asia), which would clearly indicate to me that Baier-Lentz is a notable and instrumental person in the global gaming & interactive media industry.
Aside from what is covered in the article, he does a lot of work advising high school and college students and co-authored a book that was in the Spiegel bestsellers in Germany last year, which is how I got to know him and why I am trying to move to the U.S. (and I know the same is true for many others).Maximilian.ludwig (talk)20:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.Keep:
Multiple articles from sources that are independent, in English and German language, cover Baier-Lentz as the main subject or a key element (not only one-line), and clearly satisfyWP:NBASIC, including but not limited to:
Beyond that, Baier-Lentz is widely recognized for his contributions in the gaming industry, including but not limited to: (a), In both 2023 and 2024, Baier-Lentz has been the leading venture capital investor in gaming and interactive media globally; having led rounds of aggregated $162 million and $252 million across both years, respectively. (b) Host of CEO Forum (largest CEO gathering in the gaming industry). (c) Creator of Game Theory (podcast hosting major industry CEOs) and Game Changers (largest annual gaming startup competition). He has also received multiple competitive awards relevant to his industry, including but not limited to 30 Under 30 (Forbes), 40 Under 40 (Capital), and Young Global Leaders (World Economic Forum).Ruisleipae-helsinki (talk)14:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any reviews of this album on the Finnish wiki (it seems to be the musician's website and a "where are they now" article). I can't find much of anything about this, article on English wiki is unsourced, so that doesn't help.Oaktree b (talk)01:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this cattle station being notable, sources are either run of the mill news stories or about owners of the station, none providing any real SIGCOV of the station itself.Traumnovelle (talk)22:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually looked at the sources yourself? One is an advertisement and the rest of the news sources provide trivial mentions as part of routine news reporting.
The government own the station so they aren't an independent source here, with the source in question being just a report that is done for all Western Australian pastoral leases.Traumnovelle (talk)23:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Just passes the threshold due to the coverage of the floods and the air crash. Might benefit from some more sources but this looks okay to me.Curly Suix (talk)07:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment The only clear references I can find are in a fertilizer sampling report; everything else seems to be chance juxtapositions. The topos do show it, except that by the time they do, it's one continuous stream of built-up area from Baltimore on out. We need some more testimony of the palce.Mangoe (talk)13:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment I see some official documents referring to this, but none of them say what it is. I gather in colonial times there was a manor by this name. At present it is an anonymous area in the great along-the-bay sprawl consisting of a marina and a bunch of houses.Mangoe (talk)13:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems synthesized to me/original research. "Germany" as a single unified state came and went for most of a millenia working up to the 1800s. One could potentially make a list page about "Crown Jewels of Germanic States from ??? to ???" but this article is not that.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk)04:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He lived, he died. No evidence of notability or anyWP:SIGCOV beyond the sheer fact that he lived and died. His whole life is effectively summed up in his parent's articles. Could be redirected to the appropriate section ofDescendants of Queen Victoria so as to avoid arbitrarily selecting one of his parents articles as the appropriate target.estar8806 (talk)★00:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)