Cleanup and sourcing was discussed in the 2007 deletion discussion - I think anyone who wants to cleanup or source this has had enough time by nowChidgk1 (talk)16:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perWP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If such lists were confined to examples about which something more could be said,e.g. those that are unrelated to the endonym or distorted by false etymology, I'd say keep. I'd also preserve places in Turkey from which Greeks were expelled.—Tamfang (talk)21:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I think your approach is a bit too narrow, I agree with the broad strokes. That being said, if this is deleted, I have no reason to believe that the bits you are saying to keep will be saved. UnfortunatelyList of Greek exonyms in Turkey has been deleted, granted based on the AfD it may have had quality issues.Ike Lek (talk)22:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This article has already been brought to AFD before so is not eligible for a Soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!20:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have carried outWP:BEFORE for this article about a small private school, and added two references. I cannot find more coverage, however, and I am not sure the local newspaper coverage is independent, as it relies on information from the school and refers readers to the school's website. I don't think thatWP:GNG orWP:NSCHOOL is met.Tacyarg (talk)20:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly speedy keep. Satisfies GNG easily with significant coverage in many books and periodicals in Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News and the Internet Archive. It is not surprising this satisfies GNG, since it was the largest music retailer in Canada:[1]. To find all the sources, you need to search for both "A&A" (without spaces) and "A & A" (with spaces). Since the nominator removed both the independent reliable sources from the article without any explantion or any apparent good reason[2][3] and then falsely claimed in this AfD that the article lacked independent reliable sources, and since valid content has been repeatedly removed many times without explantion or any apparent good reason from the article by IPs that geolocate to the country he claims on his userpage to come from (which appear to have been him, judging by their behaviour), and there have been complaints of blatant vandalism by other editors both for his account[4] and those IPs[5][6], I think we might be able to infer that this nomination has been made for the purpose of vandalism and is a candidate for criteria 2 ofWP:SK.James500 (talk)21:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the Luke Brugnara article for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia’s notability standards for biographies. While the subject has received some coverage due to legal issues, the majority of the article focuses disproportionately on criminal convictions, clearly falls inWP:Crime.
Additionally, much of the content lacks reliable secondary sources and appears to rely on local or sensational media, which may not meet Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability. The article could be viewed as violating Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View and Biographies of Living Persons policies due to the lack of context and breadth.Unclethepoter (talk)18:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure tax evasion is notable. Even defrauding an art dealer is a rather low-level crime. I don't see notability otherwise.Oaktree b (talk)20:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the above references 1 & 2 may offer coverage, it's important to consider whether they meet the depth and independence required byWP:GNG. Subscription-only sources can be difficult for other editors to verify, and without access it's hard to assess whether they provide significant coverage or merely mention the subject in passing.
Most of the existing article content appears to rely on primary or court-related sources, which may not establish lasting notability.WP:GNG emphasizes sustained coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources—not just notoriety from legal proceedings.Unless stronger sourcing is presented that demonstrates broad, in-depth coverage beyondcriminal activity, I believe the page may not serve an encyclopedic purpose.Unclethepoter (talk)06:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer with 103 minutes minutes in the top Slovak league followed by a publicised decision to stop football in order to focus on school[9]. Later career in the Austrian lower divisions does not seem to have attracted significant coverage.C67919:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The listed sources so far are insufficient SIGCOV - they are routine obituaries or anniversaries of people who lived to a certain age. GNG Fail so farInvadingInvader (userpage,talk)20:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a 90th Birthday Anniversary in a local paper the same way that sometimes newspapers will cover people who live to a long age.
Gunnar Johannes Sandborg, Midtstugrenda 43, 0787 Oslo. Sandborg has worked in the international paper trade and paper industry his entire working life. He lived 18 years abroad – 10 of them in Kenya, where he was Norwegian consul for Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda. The jubilant was later employed by Norske Skog, where he was with the company from its inception in 1965 until his retirement, a total of almost 30 years. Sandborg helped build the company and held the position of CEO of Norske Skog (sales) AS, among other positions. The jubilant has been married to former SAS flight attendant Mildred Bogen for over 62 years, and together they have three children, six grandchildren and one great-grandchild. In his youth, Sandborg was an active rower. He has five Norwegian championships and participated in Norway's foursome in the London Olympics in 1948. Until he was 72, he was also an active cross-country skier. He has completed 21 Birkebeiner races with medals and some prizes, and has become a Worldloppet Master. As an avid ocean sailor, he has crossed the Atlantic, and at the age of 85 he took his last sailing trip, which went from Dublin to Risør.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for a Soft deletion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!19:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't shown through reliable sources (see analysis table below). The author of the article admitted in the draft process that there weren't a lot of articles they could locate that were significant coverage. If this is the best that can be found, then there isn't truly significant coverage to be found. A Google News search shows a lot of press release type things and some coverage of individuals being mentioned in the magazine, but little about the magazine itself.CountryANDWestern (talk)21:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to be PROD'd because of inclusion in a mass nomination from 2021 which was withdrawn. GNG fail so far - no sigcov hits on Google for the specific person in question so farInvadingInvader (userpage,talk)17:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please slow down. The number of Olympic AFDs right now is absolutely ludicrous and prevents anyone from giving them adequate searches.BeanieFan11 (talk)17:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct - and the withdrawal seemed to be based on a former NSPORT revision which made all Olympic competitors automatically notable for their own article.InvadingInvader (userpage,talk)18:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment– How sad it must be to have 2 of your 3 brothers have better Wikipedia pages than you. I feel for the guy. No strong opinion on deletion. –Ike Lek (talk)22:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently only has 2 games according to their website. FailsWP:Company. Open to aMerge withMy.Games and placing it in a new subsidiaries section. If it's parent company is not notable, then delete this and I will consider a discussion on the parent company.Servite et contribuere (talk)16:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge withMy.Games. I personally am 50/50 on whether that article's subject is notable, but it needs a major rewrite anyway. If My.Games is notable, then I doubt Pixonic would be underWP:INHERITORG. Merging the two articles (and expanding coverage using reliable sources) may help ascertain notability.Gommeh🎮18:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is there more support for the proposed merge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Left guide (talk)18:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Are there any good ATDs for this? You are right that it isn't very encyclopedic, but it is a great index that I would love to be kept in some form. Is there another Wikimedia project that it would fit better on? I would like it to continue to exist, even though this isn't the right place for it. –Ike Lek (talk)22:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you use this table and how know the quality is "great" when there are no sources? Is that because you checked a sample by flipping round language links? Perhaps a Belarussian reading this would like to translate it to Belarussian Wikipedia? However I don’t know their rules. Another alternative if you need it in bulk might be to make a Wikidata query. Or could AI nowadays flip round the language links on your request? Or are you saying it is useful to you because some articles don't exist in other languages? In which case without sources how can you trust the info?Chidgk1 (talk)06:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have come to realize that the Yiddish translations are maybe a bit rougher than I thought. I was going to manually update Wikidata items, but I've decided against it due to the lack of citations. Sorry to bother you.Ike Lek (talk)06:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After assessing the sources from the previous AFD, I do want to re-bring this up. From the original AFD, the podcast does not go into sufficient Significant Coverage, the newspaper hits at least from what i can read as a non-subscriber I am inferring are not sufficient and seem to be database-esque or update-style on the sports listings, and the tabloid divorce thing is a tabloid so inherently unreliable. I conducted some of my own research as well, and was unable to find anything that demonstrated significant independent coverage from reliable sources, so at least for now, it is close, but I'm going to call it for now a GNG fail.InvadingInvader (userpage,talk)15:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep.Arcanum brings up over 50 mentions of her even though their collection of newspapers from her region is very limited. Most are on the shorter end but one could turn this into something decent with what's available, and it isn't unreasonable to think that there is more offline.BeanieFan11 (talk)17:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The particular issue ПОЛИТИКА, January 1985 (LXXXII/25590-25619) from Arcanum looks interesting, but at least from the section that is publicly viewable, it's almost like a transcript from a radio broadcast the same way that Kentucky Derby commentators might go "Summer is Tomorrow is taking the lead and must hit the turn". The rest is all passing - not enough for GNGInvadingInvader (userpage,talk)18:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: InvadingInvader's most recent objection remains unaddressed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Left guide (talk)18:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject doesn't meet Wikipedia'sgeneral notability guidelines for a standalone biography. The article relies on trivial, dated sources and coverage does not demonstrate significant, independent, in-depth reporting by reliable third-party publications. Most sources are blogs, routine mentions, or paid publications, and there is a strong sense of self-promotion. There is no lasting or substantial coverage in national or any highly reputable media. As such, the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, and the article appears to exist primarily to further promote the individual.BradHeat (talk)18:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable term in sports. While the term safeword applies to other things, I could not find any reputable sources to establish the term safe word in the context of sports so would argue verifiability is not met. The closest is the related and linkedSubmission (combat sports) also known as 'tapping out' so that article is more appropriateColdupnorth (talk)17:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No independent notability.REDIRECT toThe Bachelor New Zealand. The entire article seems to bank on her unique ethnicity, which isn't enough for a Wikipedia article. Also she doesn't feature in the film listed (her role is unnamed well because she is isn't in the film; she could be in a deleted scene, but that doesn't add notability) and her other film is unreleased. Redirect undone in the sense of "undid major vandalism" although my edit wasn't vandalism and wasWP:BOLD.
The article creator is her friend on Instagram[12]. Being a part ofThe Bachelor New Zealand andEx Best Thing seems like aWP:TOOEARLY because the latter show only has 1 reliable source fromThe Spinoff[13] and no Wikipedia article.
AWP:BEFORE found the following sources:[14], 1 of which is about a rental dispute.
The article creator is verysuspicious. My last few edits were just naming duplicate references, which the article creator did not do. Also many of the sources seem to be from small local Indian community newspapers.DareshMohan (talk)17:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the test atWP:NACTOR. I'm also not seeing anyWP:SIGCOV in the references I've spotchecked.The Times of India source is indeed solely about Jey, but it's effectivelyjust a press release. Frankly, even if we overlook the questionably reliability in the other sources, "effectively a press release" applies to a majority of the references I've viewed. Eventhis appears to have been placed by her manager, who gets a shout-out and link to their now-deleted Wikipedia article at the end.Ed[talk][OMT]18:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe this topic meets thenotability criteria. A before finds a few mentions of it existing, but nothing covering the topic in depth, merely the topic being discussed when the creator of it is the main focus. Mentioned in one book - by its creator.CoconutOctopustalk17:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Propose to delete as I don't think this satisfies any of the there criteria forWP:JOURNALCRIT and it has only one reference. C1) Although the journal is indexed in Scopus according to the commentary atWP:NJOURNALS there is not a clear consensus that this alone is sufficient to establish notability. C2) likely not satisfied, see for exampleSJR. C3) not demonstrated through current sourcing.Caleb Stanford (talk)16:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article Eastern world lacks substantive standalone content and functions primarily as a vague conceptual overview rather than a clear, encyclopedic entry. Its entire premise centers on the assertion that "Eastern world" is an imprecise, shifting term with no consistent, coherent definition or shared identity. This limited scope makes the article redundant to the more comprehensive and analytically grounded articleEast–West dichotomy.
Specifically:
Redundancy in Scope
The main theme of the article is that "Eastern world" is an arbitrary and constructed label, often defined externally (especially through the lens of Orientalism and colonial-era discourse). This point is already treated in depth inEast–West dichotomy, which provides a better historical, cultural, and geopolitical framing of the East-West concept. Maintaining both articles fragments the discussion and duplicates content.
Lack of Independent Definition
The article acknowledges that the "Eastern world" lacks a singular cultural, historical, or political identity. It doesn't offer a distinct set of characteristics, events, or structures that justify a separate encyclopedic entry. Instead, it serves as a footnote or sub-topic to the broader, more rigorous discussion of how the "East" has been constructed in contrast to the "West."
Orientation by Negation
Rather than defining what the "Eastern world" is, the article focuses on what it is not — namely, that it lacks clarity, coherence, and a universally agreed-upon definition. This undermines its value as a standalone encyclopedic topic and confirms that the concept is better treated within a broader analytical framework.
Better Treatment Elsewhere
Concepts like Orientalism, the Global South, regional classifications (East Asia, South Asia, etc.), and postcolonial studies already cover the cultural and geopolitical identities discussed here. The current article adds little that is not already better explored in these other contexts.Hassan697 (talk)16:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by an SPA and probable UPE. It is heavily reliant onhttps://www.houseofherrera.com/ as a reference and I am an unable to find any significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Unless there are Spanish sources that I can't locate, it seems unlikely thatWP:GNG is met.SmartSE (talk)16:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 The rank of major general, combined with being a Hilal-i-Imtiaz (Military; the second highest award), reflects a career of national-level distinction. These are not routine achievements.
As perWP:NOTE: "The barometer of notability is whether reliable sources cover the subject in significant detail." In military contexts, however, high-ranking officers are often not profiled in depth unless involved in controversy.Behappyyar (talk)17:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every major general of Pakistan (of whom there are currently 186) has received theHilal-i-Imtiaz; that is the routine purpose of the award. Yes, if an officer, no matter how high-ranking, has not received coverage in reliable sources, they are not notable.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)17:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 Your assertion here is factually incorrect, it is not the case that every Major General in Pakistan receives theHilal-i-Imtiaz. There is no official policy mandating this. Even if a significant number are awarded it, that does not diminish its status as a nationally recognized honor (2nd highest award) explicitly listed underWP:ANYBIO.
More importantly,WP:ANYBIO does not require an award to be rare, it requires that the subject has received a "widely recognized honor or award at a national level" or "held a significant command position in a national military organization." This subject satisfies both conditions: a two-star general and a recipient of theHilal-i-Imtiaz.
Additionally, coverage in reliable sources is a requirement ofWP:GNG, but it is not a requirement ofWP:ANYBIO. As perWP:N:
"Satisfying any one of the notability guidelines is sufficient for notability."
It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG).Behappyyar (talk)19:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what are the criteria outlined in the subject-specific notability guideline? You are looking forWP:NBASIC, which requires"significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject".WP:ANYBIO is part of the "additional criteria", where people"are likely to be notable" but"meeting one or more [criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included".
Three rocks off a beach in Antarctica do not have inherent notability. The page has a few maps and a line in a gazeteer of antarctica.JMWt (talk)15:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that this man is notable. He lived in Wisconsin and was an entrepreneur. But what else? He was one of the first white people to settle permanently in an area of Wisconsin.
Good faith deprod by@Absurdum4242: with the reasoning that with nearly 50 games, there would be sources out there. There are only primary sources on the Japanese Wikipedia, and I only found passing mentions in[15][16] .RossEvans19 (talk)13:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No independent RS on the page. Mentions can be found in local media, but given that most of the page here is a description of the image, surely this would be better included as a section onLethbridge where the image is already shown.WP:NOPAGEJMWt (talk)13:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of "AI mysticism" does not seem to be a notable one, the three sources here do not really evidence that, and are rather dubious.PARAKANYAA (talk)01:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this page just needs more sourcing in general as I do believe this is a notable concept. As of 2 days ago, CNN also just released a segment and article on this highlighting this phenomenon. ABC (or NBC I cant remember at the moment lol) also made a segment on this. I am interested in this topic and so is the broader public and prominent news agencies.જ⁀➴ (talk)15:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone believing whatever an LLM says is not mysticism and we're not here to ratify that as an actual concept through mediawashing.Nathannah •📮17:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a relevant article about the effects of AI. I do think this will eventually merit a full article, but it doesnt seem to be there yet. I dont know enough of the subject matter to suggest a destination, but I think this would be a useful subsection somewhere.Metallurgist (talk)01:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any more ideas about a potential merge target? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Owen×☎08:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per editor Cyclopia's reasoning and found academic topic evidence. I added the {{more citations needed}} template to the article.5Q5|✉10:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes, they are a catalogue. But this is a rather interesting situation, because inherently they are a cataloguing system for finding information. We are an encyclopaedia that provides information, and many of the subjects in this list are blue-linked to other articles, from which readers can get to places. This list is therefore, in a strange sort of way, an index into Wikipedia ideally suited to those who think like a librarian, and organise their knowledge by library book numbers. Secondly, removing this leaves the reader of the main article on the system itself (atDewey Decimal Classification) rather in the lurch, thinking "Now I know how this system developed, but what does it actually look like?". Thirdly, it's weirdly counter-productive when an organisation as fixated on sourcing as we are decides to remove a list that actively helps our readers find sources in their local library. Overall, this deletion feels like pointless rule-following when the result is clearly to shoot ourselves (and our readers) firmly in the feet.Elemimele (talk)07:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... I should clarify it is the basic list of Dewey decimal classes that I'm suggesting keeping. I have no opinion on the comparison article.Elemimele (talk)07:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This in my opinion is the biggest problem with Wikipedia. So many editors are more concerned about rules than the actual utility of articles.
The thing is that hundreds of people reference this article daily, and it seems that they do so for academic purposes (there’s a notable drop in page-views over the weekend).
Rules are important, but some of the rules on Wikipedia do seem to make it difficult for information that would be helpful to have on Wikipedia from being here.
Delete Per nom. Regarding the pages listing all Dewey classes: it is inherently non-encyclopedic in nature. While the hyperlinks as a jumping off point can be nice, where to hyperlink within Wikipedia feels inherently subjective. Long-term, the function these lists serve could be replaced by an external link on the DDC page to a public domain DDC chart, which would serve the same purpose (which is what's happening in the LCC page). Regarding the comparison article (Comparison of Dewey and Library of Congress subject classification): a quick search of the internet reveals many external sources that provides similar, if not better functions to this article (e.g.,this article by Kilgore college;thislink to a very comprehensive table that's already presented as an external link in the article in question (along with the DDC to LCC version), which could be moved to the respective DDC and LCC articles to provide additional resources). I feel that given the non-encyclopedic nature of this article (reproducing material available elsewhere), this article should be deleted.Hthundercroft (talk)03:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least as far as the first one. This feels like a clearWP:Ignore all rules moment, where getting rid of it would be an objective loss for Wikipedia, and following the letter of the rule is detrimental. I am inclined to believe that the explanation of the Dewey decimal system is incomplete without this list, and that it serves a valuable (though admittedly narrow) navigational function. –Ike Lek (talk)22:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ike Lek. These articles aren't a cataloguing anything; they are providing information about acataloguing system. Completely different.Tompw (talk)21:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't find a relevant section to an applicable guideline or policy, but it seems to me that we have different ways to navigate this encyclopedia and this could, conceivably, be another. It doesn't really fit neatly within the others, but I can't really see a reason why it is worse. It might well be of minor interest to most users, but might be of use to someone.JMWt (talk)13:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review the page. I understand the importance of maintaining Wikipedia’s standards and appreciate the feedback. I’m reaching out to ask if you’d be open to helping improve the article rather than nominating it for deletion.
The page has been edited and adjusted by other contributors, and I’ve tried to follow guidance as best I can. I’m still unclear on what qualifies as “in-depth” coverage...could you clarify what that means in this context? I’d really appreciate any direction you can offer on how to strengthen the article to meet notability guidelines.
When I look at similar companies in the industry, their pages seem comparable in structure and sourcing. I’m committed to making improvements and just want to ensure the page has a fair chance.
Delete: There appears to be one review of the book, under the "Critique of the book" external link in the article. I don't see any other reviews in my searches, I don't think we have enough to show notability for books.Oaktree b (talk)13:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm relying on machine translation and could very well be wrong, but it seems like the external link "About the book, in Segula Magazine for Jewish History" is also a review. It's just a scan of a page and I can't find a way to access the magazine issue, but based on a machine translation it reads and is presented like a second review of the book. Hopefully someone else might be able to confirm?MCE89 (talk)14:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing is primary in the article... I can find mentions of satisfaction slipping, but nothing about this piece of paper included in snacks. Does not seem to be widely used as there are no mentions of it.Oaktree b (talk)13:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An address to write to for concerns or comments isWP:MILL for any consumer product, just in this case they don't have room on the packaging so they just print it inside the package on the cardboard the food is on. Nothing of note here.Nathannah •📮16:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does anyone know how I can communicate with the organizers of this editathon? Basically every single article created because of this has been nominated for deletion or draftified, and many of the participants have been blocked for meatpuppetry and disruptive editing ([21],[22], etc.)ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)07:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely seems like editors having good intentions, but not being very aware of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and notability guidelines. Most of the topics in their "focus topics" list and the latter half of their article list don't seem notable enough for their own articles, and the wording "advocating for reparations for Africa and its Diaspora" makes it sound like they're trying touse Wikipedia as a soapbox.ApexParagon (talk)15:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific person I can contact? The person who created the editathon pages haven't been active in months (and has been blocked in Commons.) I'm willing to take this to ANI or some other venue since this has only led to disruption.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)16:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company, there are almost no references and does not meetWP:NCCORP. I could not find anything to show notability and the article has had notability tag for some time without any new references being added.Sargdub (talk)06:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the Hobby Consolas piece, this company would seem to lack enoughWP:SIGCOV to passWP:NCORP. Possible COI concerns with the article's creator so they may not have considered notability when making the article.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)05:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Just make it a draft" doesn't work when it will never be notable. Larian Studios is a possible merge target though since BlitWorks became Larian Barcelona.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)16:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I previously removed a list of Democrats who represent the county in the state legislature and Congress. These do not have to do with the county committee, even if they may seek their endorsement.Reywas92Talk04:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said that on the NY county one as well, which may have a case, but what is the notability of this? The article has nothing on it and really no independent links to it.Metallurgist (talk)23:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs expansion. I believe it passes notability requirements as the organization has a physical headquarters and staffed office, leadership structure, members, and events.Eulersidentity (talk)05:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now or draftify. The nature of the first source LetsRun provided I do have concerns about its brevity. Seems like a radio update just like how maybe the local news in Linkoping Sweden would cover one of their villagers making the Olympics, and doesn't go into as much detail. The second and third sources so far could be used for statistics while Iacovos was swimming for the Crimson Tide. I think if there is one more source which could provide significant coverage, I would back it, but for now, I'm going to say either draftify or delete, and the closer may use whichever of my preferences forms the most consensus in favor of it.InvadingInvader (userpage,talk)20:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Beyond the one decent independent source I found earlier, I'm just not seeing the in depth, significant coverage needed for theWP:GNG to be met here. Please ping me if more/better coverage can be found.Let'srun (talk)03:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I can't read Greek, so I can only do so much with Google translate. I thought #6 (3rd I listed) had a decent shot at being independent.Ike Lek (talk)20:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been helpful if you had made note of his Greek Wikipedia page.el:Μάκης Κολέθρας It isn't well sourced, but it gives a lot of information helpful to finding sources, like the name he is more commonly referred to by. His wikidata seems messed up.
Keep but recommending a draftification for additional improvement - I think we have the sources on this one.InvadingInvader (userpage,talk)01:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An exact copy of declined draft at AFC. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The subject appears to have limited, mostly routine coverage in local or community outlets. Coverage primarily focuses on her role as Miss India–Canada 2014 or yoga-related event mentions, but lacks significant independent, in-depth biographical coverage in reliable secondary sources. Much of the media used is either trivial, brief, or not about her in a substantial way. Notability is not inherited from participation in a beauty pageant or teaching yoga unless supported by significant coverage.Thilsebatti (talk)04:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are only three sources about the beauty pageant that come up in my search, which doesn't appear to be a notable pageant either. Otherwise appears to be a routine yoga teacher, with a non-notable career.Oaktree b (talk)13:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to be violatingWP:OR. The battle itself lacks significant coverage. There is nothing to show if this is a notable subject.THEZDRX(User) |(Contact)03:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not meet the notability guidelines for companies. It only cites the company's official website, which is a primary source. There are no independent or reliable sources provided to establish significant coverage, as required byWP:GNG andWP:CORP. Recommenddelete orredirect toRebisco if there is relevant coverage. —AdobongPogiTalk22:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any real coverage of them, mostly articles saying how their product packaging is the most found item in polluted beaches. Sourcing in the article is largely primary.Oaktree b (talk)13:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the points above. The article is primarily general statements about world history. What information there is specifically about this idea could most likely be integrated into another article. Likely doesn't warrant it's own article.A person of sorts (talk)03:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is mostly OR and SYNTH. The only source that talks about the topic directly is an article inDialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought.TurboSuperA+(talk)08:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LikelyWP:TOOSOON but failsWP:NACTOR. A lot of announcements on upcoming projects (non of which are notable for Wikipedia), but nothing in-depth about the subject himself outside of non-bylined churnalism and promotional content that mirrors what fall underWP:NEWSORGINDIA.CNMall41 (talk)17:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it: Recently, he is a very popular and notable actor in Bangladesh, about this topic covered in the (Acting career) section. This article has been passedWP:NACTOR for the (Acting career) section. Moreover, this article has been accepted into theAFC draft submission. –Aqsis Bey (talk)13:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, seeWP:HOUNDING. Fewer than 50 edits and yet you show up at numerous AfD discussions with different topics, filed on different dates, etc. Only one connection to all of these which is me. Second, seeWP:ATA. Third, there is no inherent notability fromWP:NACTOR based on roles (seediscussion here).--CNMall41 (talk)16:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, I didn't even notice you until now, trust me, I'm not exactly out here hounding you. Don't flatter yourself. lol. Secondly, I understand thatThe person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions meets the notability under WP:NACTOR. If that’s incorrect, feel free to correct me, preferably without the snide tone.Gepeas (talk)17:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not flattered. Pretty duckish when new accounts are created to HOUND. You wouldn't be the first. To appease your vote, I will reiterate what I said in my third point above. Yes, you are incorrect. Simply having the roles does not guarantee notability. I would again suggest you read the discuss I linked to (or don't). --CNMall41 (talk)18:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you came up with this hounding idea. Out of the 11 AfD discussions I'm involved in, only two came up with your name. Anyway, I don't see any reason to continue this discussion with your dogmatic mindset.Gepeas (talk)18:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SeeWP:VW. "the actor has done some notable films." Which films, what roles, what sources verify, where is the significant coverage documenting such? There is NO guideline that says someone is notable for having "done some notable films."--CNMall41 (talk)17:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the scent of a UPE firm here. A suspicious account messaged me on social media asking for advice on how to keep this article up! Also, it failsWP:NACTOR, sodelete. —Yahya (talk •contribs.)09:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: "It passes NACTOR" is insufficient. Explain the roles which show that this because just stating it as true does not make it so. Additionally some items which pass AFCshould get deleted. The standard at AFC iswill probably survive AfD which means some will not. At the moment I weight this discussion as DELETE given the lack of justification for the keep votes but am relisting this a third time to give time for those advocating keep to justify their reasoning. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Barkeep49 (talk)02:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails to meet theWP:GNG because of a lack ofWP:SIGCOV. The only reference is primary to the league the subject participated in and all I could find elsewhere was a couple of sentences at [[32]], but it isn't enough to meet the notability guidelines in my opinion.Let'srun (talk)02:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails GNG and NEVENT. Minorincident, no sources found showing this has WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Most sources cited are just a passing mention of this incident, absolutely no significant notability to warrant its own article.Socialwave597 (talk)02:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails to meet theWP:GNG because of a lack ofWP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources. The current sources are all primary to clubs the subject played for and all I could find elsewhere was a single paragraph of coverage at [[33]].Let'srun (talk)02:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a difficult time finding sufficient in-depth coverage from independent sources to meetWP:GNG. This is not, however, my area of expertise, so I would appreciate help in locating such sources, as much of it looks promotional.JTtheOG (talk)01:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, I nominated what people found “a lot” of articles for deletion in a “short space of time”. They were extremely short and obviously non-notable. Today, this user seemingly entered my page and chose to nominate this article in apparent retaliation, which I translated from Spanish Wikipedia. Do whatever you want, I don't care, I just wanted to stress the correlation of events for you to judge the behavior of this editor.Aldorwyn of Rivendell (talk)07:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's retaliation or not, it doesn't mean pages that you personally create can get a "free pass" from passing notability standards. If it was a spurious nomination and you could easily counter it with presented sources, you'd have more of a leg to stand on here.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)08:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fascinated to hear how English MPs and Supreme Courts Presidents are "obviously non-notable". This fundamental misunderstanding of Wiki policies most certainly warrants further scrutiny of your past edits.JTtheOG (talk)08:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So my “misunderstanding” warrants further scrutiny on this article just because I happened to have created it, and you thought reverting my yesterday tags and nominating this for deletion would “teach my a lesson”?, great. And that's not retaliation? Ok, delete it if it makes you happy and keep self promo articles of 3 lines about a defunct magazine of 70 years ago in “your” Wikipedia, I just don't care.Aldorwyn of Rivendell (talk)10:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As it reads there: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight."Aldorwyn of Rivendell (talk)10:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IQUIT is a heavily discouraged argument on AfD discussions. Keep it focused on the facts of whether sources exist rather than stoking irrelevant drama to distract from the issue at hand.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)11:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quit, and I don't care, just do whatever you want. You just chose to undo all my prods yesterday and to keep this one in pushback and retaliation and you are ganging on me due to personal differences, not this article quality or the quality of the other articles. That's your behaviour. Good luck. You can ban me if you want.Aldorwyn of Rivendell (talk)11:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So my “misunderstanding” warrants further scrutiny on this article just because I happened to have created it: Yes. It is reasonable to assume that your fundamental misunderstanding of Wiki policies on notability would be reflected in your article creations.
and you thought reverting my yesterday tags and nominating this for deletion would “teach my a lesson: I'm not a teacher, so no.JTtheOG (talk)19:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage found about this game engine. In French websites I can only find social media or university mentions of it[34]. Sourcing now in the article is primary or in non-RS.Oaktree b (talk)13:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I !voted to leavethe aforementioned other one be for procedural reasons as it was sent to AfD just hours before the protests started, so it was a clear case ofWP:RAPID/WP:TOOSOONDEL to me. This one, on the other hand, is still a couple of weeks away, so it's simplyWP:TOOSOON. I say incubate it so the author(s) can keep updating it and submit it for review at a later date when it's more possible to assess its notability. Vanilla Wizard💙02:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think we should be purging Wikipedia of an article with 30+ sources about a major demonstration being held this week. If tens of thousands of people are expected to participate in hundreds of locations, then this is clearly about a notable topic. I also don't think draftifying for a few days is necessary, but sure if that's the route editors prefer. ---Another Believer(Talk)13:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This protest is pretty important and saw multiple cities in the US states, territories and even outside of the USA joining the protests. Last time i checked, mass protests that cross national borders are pretty important.VitoxxMass(Talk)13:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Looking for more policy-based arguments. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Left guide (talk)00:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing another editor: Notability not established with substantive sources. Coordinates are to a remote uninhabited area so I'm not sure what's even being described here (is a community or "area"? It's not even in the GNIS)Insanityclown1 (talk)00:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't in the scope of A7. The source (TSHA) is certainly reliable - it just doesn't seem to be about the topic of the article. Like Maile below, I really can't find anything on the place mentioned, unless it's supposed to be about the draw?SamKuru(talk)03:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction on A7; I didn't see that "locations" wasn't listed. You believe the TSHA is reliable? Even though the cited article is credited "anonymous"? I poked around, and other articles are cited to experts, which seems to imply that the provenance of this one is unknown.EducatedRedneck (talk)17:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can not find any RS that establishes notability other than as a cast member onThe GC.[36][37][38]
Her only song to have (briefly) charted was the theme song for the GC. Says she was a finalist onX-Factor, but she's even not mentioned in the wikilinked article.
Delete, or Merge as suggested above. I come up with nothing, but I have no access to New Zealand sourcing, if any exists.— Maile (talk)00:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LeaningKeep - clear pass onWP:MUSICBIO with a top 10 hit. Furthermore theNZ Herald has coverage including[40],[41],[42] and there's also some bio and coverage of her music atMusicNZ. Note sources appear to be inconsistent with her surname; theOtago Daily Times calls her Harawira Dewes; while theNZ Herald calls her Dewson-Hawera. I've gone with the latter and updated the article.ResonantDistortion15:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not have access to most of these sources (and it looks like one of them even returns a 404 error). However the subject having made the top 10 in New Zealand is a widely-recognized honor, as such the subject is notable underWP:ANYBIO as well as criterion 2 ofWP:MUSICBIO.Gommeh🎮17:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
